![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Removed "During an shu maif...". I don't believe that it is an actual phrase in the english language. 69.242.95.129 ( talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This movie came out in 1996 actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.195.7 ( talk) 04:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) This movie came out over the summer of 1996, along with Matilda, Independence Day, Escape to L.A. and Mission Impossible. Somebody needs to figure out why this movie is listed as coming out in 1998 instead of 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.51.171 ( talk) 03:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I just figured out something, this could be where the terroist of 9/11 got the idea.
- Chris
As far as terrorists getting ideas from it? That's far-reaching conjecture, not supported by any evidence and not neccesary to include in the article.
- rjp2006
More Wikipedia madness. When will the lame conjecture and personal interpretations end?
Does anyone have a picture of "Dottie" (the meteor) for this page?, i think it's essential.
Movie text [1]
"strikes Paris near the Champs-Elysees," - I don't think so: we SEE the Ch-E, but isn't ground zero well behind it? Kdammers 05:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, --- J.S ( t| c) 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
When Shuttle Freedom is landing on Dottie, it strikes various parts of it's heat shield on the asteroid numerous times, and the wing leading edges are also struck by bits of rock. Surely this would prevent the shuttle making a safe entry back to Earth? rgbriggsy112 2326 20 Dec 2006 (UTC)
I am going to rewrite the introductory paragraph of the Synopsis here, but I'm posting here for commentary before I do so. To be precise, many of this introductory's paragraphs statements are contrary to the actual movie.
"Before the film’s title appears onscreen, a narrator (Charlton Heston) informs us that during the time of the dinosaurs, a six mile-wide asteroid struck the Earth at the present day Yucatan Peninsula, causing catastrophic damage to its ecosystem. We are also informed that the probability of a similar disaster in our time is very high (although in scientific reality the chances of a "global killer" asteroid hitting the Earth within a hundred years is very small)."
This paragraph is purposely misleading, and implies that the narrator states more than he actually does. He points out that "This is the Earth, at a time when the Dinosaurs roamed a lush and fertile planet. A piece of rock just 6 miles wide changed all that. It hit with the force of 10,000 nuclear weapons, sending up a million tons of dirt and ash, creating a suffcatating blanket that would blot out the sun for a thousand yards. It happened before, and it will happen again."
While the movie physically depicts the Asteroid striking the Yucatan Peninsula, the narrator does not announce that fact and the article should be more clear to that point. Also, at no point do the narrator OR visuals make any reference to the "timeframe" in which the catastrophe is bound to happen again. He simply states that it definatelly will happen again inventually, a reference to an elementary law of probability: Given infinite time, even the smallest possibility is inevitable. The statement that "we are also informed that the probability of a similar disaster in our time is very high" is the most inaccurate statement in the paragraph. Finnicks 22:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's not add any "chapter" sections to the plot summary. They just take up space & are an attempt to overdramatize an already long plot. So, I took 'em out. Plus, the grammar's gotten REALLY bad. Tommyt 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed this line:
...as the explosion in the film happens inside the asteroid. Rock and ice can propagate shockwaves quite well. The vaporized materials probably added even more force to the expansion. Noclevername 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The article claims that a meteor the size of Texas would vaporize Earth. What is this claim based on?
I find it hard to beleive given how the Giant impact hypothesis posits a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized proto-planet and mentions nothing of Earth getting completely vaporized... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.144.217 ( talk) 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
The article erroneously claimed that there should not be separate continents in the opening shots of the film. This is incorrect. [2] Davidyorke ( talk) 08:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note similarities between this film and the 1979 star studded fiasco. ( 205.250.167.76 01:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC))
We really should bring this up: The Bible does not say a B-list cast will save the world from an asteriod. ( 205.250.167.76 01:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC))
Image:Armageddon score.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The cast section looks rather long, plus is rather NPOV, "Worlds best oil driller", "Loony" etc. Shouldn't it be rewritten? Douglasnicol 17:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed the part about the fire on MIR. There is nothing ironic about the fuel leaking onto electronics and setting fire to the station. It is just an unfortunate occurence. I know i'm being a grammar/word nazi, but i'll always be until Americans learn proper usage of the word irony and just what it is.
Irony = i pretend to be disable so i can get a concessions ticket for the train, and then the next day am involved in an accident that actually renders me disabled. Not the best example, but it's still irony.
Unfortunate = the space-station sets on fire because it's old and crap.
Actually thats not a very good example of irony. The Heakes ( talk) 01:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In line with the manual of style, I am removing the trivia section. If there are any relevant points in the section they can be incorporated in future, once they're in the correct section Stephen Shaw 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Would like to call into question the statement in Scientific Inaccuracy regarding gunpowder (solid firearm propellant) being unable to ignite without oxygen. Ignition of modern firearm propellant is done through percussion (the physical impact of the firing pin onto a primer) which causes the primer to flash and ignite the propellant. Propellants supply their own oxygen for the reaction to result in rapidly expanding hot gas that forces the bullet out. That oxygen is one of the primary reasons what makes them burn so much more quickly than a normal fuel. Refer to traditional Gunpowder (note its mixture) and History_of_firearms#_note-1. Also, a mention about this on Nitpickers [ [3]]. Cartridges are already sealed with bullet, primer, and propellant in a single unit. No external oxygen can get in anyway if there was any. Google 'Firearm Oxygen'. I suspect firearms can fire in space without modification but I cannot find any hard source to say so. -- Piaweh 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
According to
Straightdope.com:
"A conventional firearm would, under most circumstances, work perfectly well in space.
It’s true that there’s no oxygen in the abyss of space, but the firing of a gun doesn’t depend on oxygen even here on earth. Or, rather, it does, but not on the oxygen in the atmosphere."
Hopefully this website clear things up. -- 68.60.67.149 ( talk) 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
In the scientific inaccuracies section, it says:
Kennedy Space Center launch pads 39A and 39B appear to be only a few hundred feet apart, but in reality they are more than 1.6 miles apart. In either case, two shuttles could never be launched simultaneously; the vibration involved would destroy both vehicles. In a related issue, the space shuttles used in the movies (although specified to have been modified) are designed for orbital space travel, not for landing on objects in outer space.
I was wondering why two shuttles launched near each other, such as a few hundred feet, would be destroyed by this vibration ?? And also, where can I find a wikipedia article on this... phenomenon?
Thanks for any answers - I hope people still check this page.
I read the part about the slingshot effect around the moon; I am no master of physics, and I may be just as wrong as all those people who used to think the world was flat; but even in the weightlessness of space, wouldn't centrifugal force still apply? As I like to phrase it, it is a deterioration in the sense of inertia, such that it may be performed in any area, even zero gravity. I am not sure, of course; but just wondering. I just thought that centrifugal force still applied in space. Danny Sepley ( talk) 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Centrifugal force (or whatever it's actually called) and gravity cancel each other out in a slingshot maneuver. But speaking of which, the article mentions as a scientific inaccuracy that the lack of gravity would mean no G force, much less 11 G, but that's inaccurate. The G force in the movie comes from the acceleration to 25 000 mph, as explained in the movie and noticeable as the agony ends when they reach that speed. Also, I'm pretty sure a slingshot maneuver around the moon would add the speed of the moon relative to the sun to that of your vehicle, so that speed isn't entirely unlikely although they never mention what the speed is relative to and probably didn't think that far. 90.229.149.136 ( talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The crew fires the shuttles rockets to achieve a speed of 25,000 mph so they can slingshot around the moon and catch up to the asteroid. The moon has an escape velocity of 7,600 mph; the moon's gravity would not have been able to grasp on to the shuttle at the speed they were traveling. Instead of looping around the moon, they would have simply flown by it and drifted into space with no hope of return.
Although this movie was indeed loaded with scientific inaccuracies, the fact that a shuttle couldn't land on an asteroid or subsequently leave doesn't seem like a fair criticism, since the vehicles depicted in the movie clearly weren't shuttles; they certainly looked somewhat shuttle-like, but they were obviously some fictional new vehicle. If they were supposed to actually be shuttles I would certainly understand the criticism, but since they weren't supposed to be shuttles it seems a bit silly to complain that they don't behave like shuttles.
Uh... didn't the Beatles write/sing "Come together," not Aerosmith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.68.168 ( talk) 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You could as well list "scientific inaccuracies" in a Road Runner cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.29.143 ( talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The USD and $ appear together twice in the article. In all other places, money figures appear correct with $ only. Can anyone remove the USD in both places? Thanks Kvsh5 ( talk) 07:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
"During this time, another meteorite wipes out much of Paris, France. Then Agra, India and Sydney, Australia." paris is hit in the film, but not india or australia. i'm removing it until someone can prove me wrong. Rolston12 ( talk) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"for instance, that the shuttles could not be built fast enough, either from scratch or by modifying existing shuttles (although one scene suggests that the shuttles had already been built in secret, until such time as they were needed)"
Now i'm currently watching this and at no point in the film did they suggest ANY of the equipment was built or even modified for this mission. The "shuttles" aren't shuttles for a start and the equipment was going to be used for a mission to mars. The destination is the only major element that changed.
Besides what's the point of that section? I'm tempted to remove it... Uksam88 ( talk) 22:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, some users here have removed character deaths and the destruction of Paris from the summary repeatedly. I don't know why this is deemed necessary because in case anyone has failed to notice, Paris was totally destroyed in this film and quite a few characters died. These continued edits are trying to write off said film events as irrelevant to mention, when in fact, they are.
Whoever keeps doing this, STOP it. Rewatch the movie and you'll see they are perfectly legit mentions in the synopsis. Meteorico ( talk) 01:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The plot summary in its current form remains a total mess. While it does tell the story of the main characters, it dedicates too much of itself to them and distracts from the main plot, which is Earth's eminent destruction. Also, several events are told out of their chronological order. Paris is destroyed much later in the film than this summary indicates, and the attempt at surface detonation occurred before the loss of the drilling vehicle. There are a lot of flaws in this summary that render it bland and poorly-structured, and I believe it calls for a significant rewrite. Meteorico ( talk) 17:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry, somebody removed my perfectly accurate point regarding the plot being based on an old Space Patrol episode from 1963. I'm completely sick of this sort of behaviour on Wikipedia, and will take no further part in its maintenance and update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recidivist23 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
"In response to a bad review written by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Bay wrote a letter to the magazine questioning whether Travers knew something "that the other 100 million people around the world who saw my movie don't?" suggesting the film's popularity is tantamount to, or should at least override questions of, its quality."
The above was sourced to Lichtenfeld, p. 223. In fact, a number of statements in the article are sourced to Lichtenfeld, which is unfortunate as it means I'm unable to immediately verify them. That's beside the point in this case though.
I'm curious as to why there isn't a direct link to said bad review, and believe that would be a significant improvement. Additionally, the last clause of the above, starting with "suggesting..." appears to be original research as currently phrased, in that it seems to be interpreting what Bay is driving at. The other possibility is that the "suggestion" is actually mentioned as part of the source, but as mentioned, I am unable to verify that and it is a recent addition to the article (i.e. it was put in after the rest of the text).
I'd appreciate other editors' thoughts on this issue. Doniago ( talk) 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
In Bay's world, however, it is not only the Dan Trumans who minimize and insult the smart. When it comes to answering critics, Bay himself is one of Hollywood's most outspoken directors. Responding to Peter Travers's scathing review of Armageddon, Bay wrote a letter to the editor of Rolling Stone asking if Travers knows something "that the other two million people around the world who saw my movie don't?" (Incidentally, while Bay claims that Travers hates blockbusters, the critic had been ardent in his enthusiasm for Speed and Air Force One.) As Bay's letter continues, it seems to suggest that the film's popularity is tantamount to, or should at least override questions of, its quality.
If you watch 'The Wandering Asteroid' from 1962 series Space_Patrol_(1962) you'll notice some rather obvious parallels with the plot of Armageddon. The whole episode is on YouTube, if you're interested.
I have put this back in because it goes further than 'obvious parallels', the core of the plot is a *direct rip off* of this old kids' SF show, and was not credited in the film.
As I'm a beginner at this, I'd very much like to know who removed this from the talk page, why, and why I wasn't informed as to the reason. Recidivist23 ( talk) 13:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I supposed that as this is only the talk page and not the article itself, interesting conjecture might be tolerated, and maybe even elicit a useful and/or informed response. Recidivist23 ( talk) 15:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to edit it since I don't know if there are any other circumstances, but according to Box Office Mojo, Saving Private Ryan had a total box office of just over $216 million while Armageddon's box iffice was $201 million. (Not to mention, $488 million of Titanic's total gross was earned in 1998.)
It seems like the first paragraph declaring Armageddon the highest grossing movie of 1998 is wrong. Made even more obvious by the fact that it specifically mentions Saving Private Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.11 ( talk) 09:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
there is a parody out there about this movie don't rightly remember the name, i think it's called meteor disaster is a plastilina movie character. 74.67.102.11 ( talk) 09:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.39.2 ( talk)
I'm awre that MC nor RT were around when this film was released, but as per WP:AGG, it doesn't invalidate their use, only that we need to have sources that were from the time of the film's release in addition to this. AGG specifically explains this with an example, and which is perfected suited here. -- MASEM ( t) 15:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
People just won't leave this section alone. Nothing was wrong with it and tampering with it accomplishes nothing. The details included in should not be based on personal opinion of what is important to the plot and what's not, yet these seem to come in constant conflict in this section. Leave it alone. WisdomSeer ( talk) 07:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll say it again. To Doniago this time, stop messing with the synopsis, okay? Some of you guys really need to just leave it alone. WisdomSeer ( talk) 03:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Under section Scientific Accuracy, the last line states NASA uses this film as a teaching tool for administrators and the source points to a two paragraph article that sources the two paragraphs from this Wikipedia Article.
New to Wikipedia, but this doesn't seem legit.
Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCDewy ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Armageddon (1998 film). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Armageddon (1998 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Pinging all whether more-or-less involved:
Welcome to the talk page. This is where you discuss changes instead of reverting. This is not something that users with this much collective experience should need to have explained to them. GMG talk 18:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's be realistic about this, the movie primarly is known for having an ensemble cast. Yes the way the poster is worded is strange, however we do not have to strictly abide by those guidelines when logic would dictate otherwise. The template instructions actually have criteria to deal with such situations "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.[1] If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus."-- Deathawk ( talk) 21:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Realizing I stepped into something here, I don't see the logic of just putting Willis' name as the infobox cast list. For one, if you look at the poster's bylines, Willis is re-mentioned along with the others in the cast list. Second, it's standard practice on other articles, eg The Shawshank Redemption (Robbins and Freeman have large text credits but are repeated with the other cast principles in the fine print; The Great Gatsby (2013 film) has 4 main stars in large print but re-includes those along with two-three others in the fine print. I say the intent of the MOS:FILM here is to use the list in the fine print, unless it is purposely misleading (for example, Cast Away is all Hanks, but I think it's rather silly to include the other two who have super-small bit parts in it for all purposes; however, as it currently is it aligns with MOS:FILM). -- Masem ( t) 22:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Screenshots of the entire opening credits may be accessed here. Also, there may be disagreement over the addition, earlier today, of the name Michael Clarke Duncan, an acting credit which does not appear above and can be seen only in the film's lengthy closing crawl. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, for the record, the names in the closing credits are not in the same order as in the opening credits and Michael Clarke Duncan is listed between Owen Wilson and Peter Stormare. Here are the names in the closing credits up to the point which includes all the names in the opening credits:
|
|
|
The closing credits may be accessed here. In contrast to the 19 names in the opening credits, the closing credits use 28 names to include all the cast members who are listed in the opening, with the last of the names, Eddie Griffin, listed 17th in the opening and 28th in the closing. The 91st and last name in the closing credits cast list is "Dog/Little Richard…… Franky" followed by a double space and then "Narration by…… Charlton Heston". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Heartily agree with you,
Beyond My Ken in all you have contributed to this whole strand. The info' box is not improved by the addition of the "ensemble" who are fully listed in the [far-too-brief] Lead and Cast sections.
As for you, Battleship Man, aggressive attitude, such as portrayed here this morning, will not be tolerated, so be warned! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 09:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NOW WE GO AGAIN. ACCUSSATIONS OF BEING A SOCK PUPPET. WHEN WILL THIS STOP FROM YOU CONSPIRACY FOLKS? 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
... while you hide behind your IP address. You are hiding by not registering as a User. You demonstrate a lack of understanding how
all of this works. ‑ ‑
Gareth Griffith‑Jones
The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)‑ ‑
Gareth Griffith‑Jones
The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑
18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC) I don't hide and I do not change boxes or who is behind a film. I edit plots and make spelling corrections. That is well proven by my edit history. So please stop you're false and misdirected accussations like all the others that have been found to be inaccurate and foolish. 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 18:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Armageddon (1998 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Cast Marshall Teague as Colonel Davis 195.147.208.139 ( talk) 00:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Removed "During an shu maif...". I don't believe that it is an actual phrase in the english language. 69.242.95.129 ( talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This movie came out in 1996 actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.195.7 ( talk) 04:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) This movie came out over the summer of 1996, along with Matilda, Independence Day, Escape to L.A. and Mission Impossible. Somebody needs to figure out why this movie is listed as coming out in 1998 instead of 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.51.171 ( talk) 03:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I just figured out something, this could be where the terroist of 9/11 got the idea.
- Chris
As far as terrorists getting ideas from it? That's far-reaching conjecture, not supported by any evidence and not neccesary to include in the article.
- rjp2006
More Wikipedia madness. When will the lame conjecture and personal interpretations end?
Does anyone have a picture of "Dottie" (the meteor) for this page?, i think it's essential.
Movie text [1]
"strikes Paris near the Champs-Elysees," - I don't think so: we SEE the Ch-E, but isn't ground zero well behind it? Kdammers 05:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, --- J.S ( t| c) 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
When Shuttle Freedom is landing on Dottie, it strikes various parts of it's heat shield on the asteroid numerous times, and the wing leading edges are also struck by bits of rock. Surely this would prevent the shuttle making a safe entry back to Earth? rgbriggsy112 2326 20 Dec 2006 (UTC)
I am going to rewrite the introductory paragraph of the Synopsis here, but I'm posting here for commentary before I do so. To be precise, many of this introductory's paragraphs statements are contrary to the actual movie.
"Before the film’s title appears onscreen, a narrator (Charlton Heston) informs us that during the time of the dinosaurs, a six mile-wide asteroid struck the Earth at the present day Yucatan Peninsula, causing catastrophic damage to its ecosystem. We are also informed that the probability of a similar disaster in our time is very high (although in scientific reality the chances of a "global killer" asteroid hitting the Earth within a hundred years is very small)."
This paragraph is purposely misleading, and implies that the narrator states more than he actually does. He points out that "This is the Earth, at a time when the Dinosaurs roamed a lush and fertile planet. A piece of rock just 6 miles wide changed all that. It hit with the force of 10,000 nuclear weapons, sending up a million tons of dirt and ash, creating a suffcatating blanket that would blot out the sun for a thousand yards. It happened before, and it will happen again."
While the movie physically depicts the Asteroid striking the Yucatan Peninsula, the narrator does not announce that fact and the article should be more clear to that point. Also, at no point do the narrator OR visuals make any reference to the "timeframe" in which the catastrophe is bound to happen again. He simply states that it definatelly will happen again inventually, a reference to an elementary law of probability: Given infinite time, even the smallest possibility is inevitable. The statement that "we are also informed that the probability of a similar disaster in our time is very high" is the most inaccurate statement in the paragraph. Finnicks 22:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's not add any "chapter" sections to the plot summary. They just take up space & are an attempt to overdramatize an already long plot. So, I took 'em out. Plus, the grammar's gotten REALLY bad. Tommyt 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed this line:
...as the explosion in the film happens inside the asteroid. Rock and ice can propagate shockwaves quite well. The vaporized materials probably added even more force to the expansion. Noclevername 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The article claims that a meteor the size of Texas would vaporize Earth. What is this claim based on?
I find it hard to beleive given how the Giant impact hypothesis posits a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized proto-planet and mentions nothing of Earth getting completely vaporized... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.144.217 ( talk) 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
The article erroneously claimed that there should not be separate continents in the opening shots of the film. This is incorrect. [2] Davidyorke ( talk) 08:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note similarities between this film and the 1979 star studded fiasco. ( 205.250.167.76 01:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC))
We really should bring this up: The Bible does not say a B-list cast will save the world from an asteriod. ( 205.250.167.76 01:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC))
Image:Armageddon score.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The cast section looks rather long, plus is rather NPOV, "Worlds best oil driller", "Loony" etc. Shouldn't it be rewritten? Douglasnicol 17:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I changed the part about the fire on MIR. There is nothing ironic about the fuel leaking onto electronics and setting fire to the station. It is just an unfortunate occurence. I know i'm being a grammar/word nazi, but i'll always be until Americans learn proper usage of the word irony and just what it is.
Irony = i pretend to be disable so i can get a concessions ticket for the train, and then the next day am involved in an accident that actually renders me disabled. Not the best example, but it's still irony.
Unfortunate = the space-station sets on fire because it's old and crap.
Actually thats not a very good example of irony. The Heakes ( talk) 01:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In line with the manual of style, I am removing the trivia section. If there are any relevant points in the section they can be incorporated in future, once they're in the correct section Stephen Shaw 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Would like to call into question the statement in Scientific Inaccuracy regarding gunpowder (solid firearm propellant) being unable to ignite without oxygen. Ignition of modern firearm propellant is done through percussion (the physical impact of the firing pin onto a primer) which causes the primer to flash and ignite the propellant. Propellants supply their own oxygen for the reaction to result in rapidly expanding hot gas that forces the bullet out. That oxygen is one of the primary reasons what makes them burn so much more quickly than a normal fuel. Refer to traditional Gunpowder (note its mixture) and History_of_firearms#_note-1. Also, a mention about this on Nitpickers [ [3]]. Cartridges are already sealed with bullet, primer, and propellant in a single unit. No external oxygen can get in anyway if there was any. Google 'Firearm Oxygen'. I suspect firearms can fire in space without modification but I cannot find any hard source to say so. -- Piaweh 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
According to
Straightdope.com:
"A conventional firearm would, under most circumstances, work perfectly well in space.
It’s true that there’s no oxygen in the abyss of space, but the firing of a gun doesn’t depend on oxygen even here on earth. Or, rather, it does, but not on the oxygen in the atmosphere."
Hopefully this website clear things up. -- 68.60.67.149 ( talk) 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
In the scientific inaccuracies section, it says:
Kennedy Space Center launch pads 39A and 39B appear to be only a few hundred feet apart, but in reality they are more than 1.6 miles apart. In either case, two shuttles could never be launched simultaneously; the vibration involved would destroy both vehicles. In a related issue, the space shuttles used in the movies (although specified to have been modified) are designed for orbital space travel, not for landing on objects in outer space.
I was wondering why two shuttles launched near each other, such as a few hundred feet, would be destroyed by this vibration ?? And also, where can I find a wikipedia article on this... phenomenon?
Thanks for any answers - I hope people still check this page.
I read the part about the slingshot effect around the moon; I am no master of physics, and I may be just as wrong as all those people who used to think the world was flat; but even in the weightlessness of space, wouldn't centrifugal force still apply? As I like to phrase it, it is a deterioration in the sense of inertia, such that it may be performed in any area, even zero gravity. I am not sure, of course; but just wondering. I just thought that centrifugal force still applied in space. Danny Sepley ( talk) 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Centrifugal force (or whatever it's actually called) and gravity cancel each other out in a slingshot maneuver. But speaking of which, the article mentions as a scientific inaccuracy that the lack of gravity would mean no G force, much less 11 G, but that's inaccurate. The G force in the movie comes from the acceleration to 25 000 mph, as explained in the movie and noticeable as the agony ends when they reach that speed. Also, I'm pretty sure a slingshot maneuver around the moon would add the speed of the moon relative to the sun to that of your vehicle, so that speed isn't entirely unlikely although they never mention what the speed is relative to and probably didn't think that far. 90.229.149.136 ( talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The crew fires the shuttles rockets to achieve a speed of 25,000 mph so they can slingshot around the moon and catch up to the asteroid. The moon has an escape velocity of 7,600 mph; the moon's gravity would not have been able to grasp on to the shuttle at the speed they were traveling. Instead of looping around the moon, they would have simply flown by it and drifted into space with no hope of return.
Although this movie was indeed loaded with scientific inaccuracies, the fact that a shuttle couldn't land on an asteroid or subsequently leave doesn't seem like a fair criticism, since the vehicles depicted in the movie clearly weren't shuttles; they certainly looked somewhat shuttle-like, but they were obviously some fictional new vehicle. If they were supposed to actually be shuttles I would certainly understand the criticism, but since they weren't supposed to be shuttles it seems a bit silly to complain that they don't behave like shuttles.
Uh... didn't the Beatles write/sing "Come together," not Aerosmith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.68.168 ( talk) 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You could as well list "scientific inaccuracies" in a Road Runner cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.29.143 ( talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The USD and $ appear together twice in the article. In all other places, money figures appear correct with $ only. Can anyone remove the USD in both places? Thanks Kvsh5 ( talk) 07:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
"During this time, another meteorite wipes out much of Paris, France. Then Agra, India and Sydney, Australia." paris is hit in the film, but not india or australia. i'm removing it until someone can prove me wrong. Rolston12 ( talk) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"for instance, that the shuttles could not be built fast enough, either from scratch or by modifying existing shuttles (although one scene suggests that the shuttles had already been built in secret, until such time as they were needed)"
Now i'm currently watching this and at no point in the film did they suggest ANY of the equipment was built or even modified for this mission. The "shuttles" aren't shuttles for a start and the equipment was going to be used for a mission to mars. The destination is the only major element that changed.
Besides what's the point of that section? I'm tempted to remove it... Uksam88 ( talk) 22:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, some users here have removed character deaths and the destruction of Paris from the summary repeatedly. I don't know why this is deemed necessary because in case anyone has failed to notice, Paris was totally destroyed in this film and quite a few characters died. These continued edits are trying to write off said film events as irrelevant to mention, when in fact, they are.
Whoever keeps doing this, STOP it. Rewatch the movie and you'll see they are perfectly legit mentions in the synopsis. Meteorico ( talk) 01:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The plot summary in its current form remains a total mess. While it does tell the story of the main characters, it dedicates too much of itself to them and distracts from the main plot, which is Earth's eminent destruction. Also, several events are told out of their chronological order. Paris is destroyed much later in the film than this summary indicates, and the attempt at surface detonation occurred before the loss of the drilling vehicle. There are a lot of flaws in this summary that render it bland and poorly-structured, and I believe it calls for a significant rewrite. Meteorico ( talk) 17:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry, somebody removed my perfectly accurate point regarding the plot being based on an old Space Patrol episode from 1963. I'm completely sick of this sort of behaviour on Wikipedia, and will take no further part in its maintenance and update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recidivist23 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
"In response to a bad review written by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Bay wrote a letter to the magazine questioning whether Travers knew something "that the other 100 million people around the world who saw my movie don't?" suggesting the film's popularity is tantamount to, or should at least override questions of, its quality."
The above was sourced to Lichtenfeld, p. 223. In fact, a number of statements in the article are sourced to Lichtenfeld, which is unfortunate as it means I'm unable to immediately verify them. That's beside the point in this case though.
I'm curious as to why there isn't a direct link to said bad review, and believe that would be a significant improvement. Additionally, the last clause of the above, starting with "suggesting..." appears to be original research as currently phrased, in that it seems to be interpreting what Bay is driving at. The other possibility is that the "suggestion" is actually mentioned as part of the source, but as mentioned, I am unable to verify that and it is a recent addition to the article (i.e. it was put in after the rest of the text).
I'd appreciate other editors' thoughts on this issue. Doniago ( talk) 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
In Bay's world, however, it is not only the Dan Trumans who minimize and insult the smart. When it comes to answering critics, Bay himself is one of Hollywood's most outspoken directors. Responding to Peter Travers's scathing review of Armageddon, Bay wrote a letter to the editor of Rolling Stone asking if Travers knows something "that the other two million people around the world who saw my movie don't?" (Incidentally, while Bay claims that Travers hates blockbusters, the critic had been ardent in his enthusiasm for Speed and Air Force One.) As Bay's letter continues, it seems to suggest that the film's popularity is tantamount to, or should at least override questions of, its quality.
If you watch 'The Wandering Asteroid' from 1962 series Space_Patrol_(1962) you'll notice some rather obvious parallels with the plot of Armageddon. The whole episode is on YouTube, if you're interested.
I have put this back in because it goes further than 'obvious parallels', the core of the plot is a *direct rip off* of this old kids' SF show, and was not credited in the film.
As I'm a beginner at this, I'd very much like to know who removed this from the talk page, why, and why I wasn't informed as to the reason. Recidivist23 ( talk) 13:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I supposed that as this is only the talk page and not the article itself, interesting conjecture might be tolerated, and maybe even elicit a useful and/or informed response. Recidivist23 ( talk) 15:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to edit it since I don't know if there are any other circumstances, but according to Box Office Mojo, Saving Private Ryan had a total box office of just over $216 million while Armageddon's box iffice was $201 million. (Not to mention, $488 million of Titanic's total gross was earned in 1998.)
It seems like the first paragraph declaring Armageddon the highest grossing movie of 1998 is wrong. Made even more obvious by the fact that it specifically mentions Saving Private Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.11 ( talk) 09:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
there is a parody out there about this movie don't rightly remember the name, i think it's called meteor disaster is a plastilina movie character. 74.67.102.11 ( talk) 09:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.39.2 ( talk)
I'm awre that MC nor RT were around when this film was released, but as per WP:AGG, it doesn't invalidate their use, only that we need to have sources that were from the time of the film's release in addition to this. AGG specifically explains this with an example, and which is perfected suited here. -- MASEM ( t) 15:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
People just won't leave this section alone. Nothing was wrong with it and tampering with it accomplishes nothing. The details included in should not be based on personal opinion of what is important to the plot and what's not, yet these seem to come in constant conflict in this section. Leave it alone. WisdomSeer ( talk) 07:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll say it again. To Doniago this time, stop messing with the synopsis, okay? Some of you guys really need to just leave it alone. WisdomSeer ( talk) 03:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Under section Scientific Accuracy, the last line states NASA uses this film as a teaching tool for administrators and the source points to a two paragraph article that sources the two paragraphs from this Wikipedia Article.
New to Wikipedia, but this doesn't seem legit.
Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCDewy ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Armageddon (1998 film). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Armageddon (1998 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Pinging all whether more-or-less involved:
Welcome to the talk page. This is where you discuss changes instead of reverting. This is not something that users with this much collective experience should need to have explained to them. GMG talk 18:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's be realistic about this, the movie primarly is known for having an ensemble cast. Yes the way the poster is worded is strange, however we do not have to strictly abide by those guidelines when logic would dictate otherwise. The template instructions actually have criteria to deal with such situations "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.[1] If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus."-- Deathawk ( talk) 21:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Realizing I stepped into something here, I don't see the logic of just putting Willis' name as the infobox cast list. For one, if you look at the poster's bylines, Willis is re-mentioned along with the others in the cast list. Second, it's standard practice on other articles, eg The Shawshank Redemption (Robbins and Freeman have large text credits but are repeated with the other cast principles in the fine print; The Great Gatsby (2013 film) has 4 main stars in large print but re-includes those along with two-three others in the fine print. I say the intent of the MOS:FILM here is to use the list in the fine print, unless it is purposely misleading (for example, Cast Away is all Hanks, but I think it's rather silly to include the other two who have super-small bit parts in it for all purposes; however, as it currently is it aligns with MOS:FILM). -- Masem ( t) 22:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
|
|
Screenshots of the entire opening credits may be accessed here. Also, there may be disagreement over the addition, earlier today, of the name Michael Clarke Duncan, an acting credit which does not appear above and can be seen only in the film's lengthy closing crawl. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, for the record, the names in the closing credits are not in the same order as in the opening credits and Michael Clarke Duncan is listed between Owen Wilson and Peter Stormare. Here are the names in the closing credits up to the point which includes all the names in the opening credits:
|
|
|
The closing credits may be accessed here. In contrast to the 19 names in the opening credits, the closing credits use 28 names to include all the cast members who are listed in the opening, with the last of the names, Eddie Griffin, listed 17th in the opening and 28th in the closing. The 91st and last name in the closing credits cast list is "Dog/Little Richard…… Franky" followed by a double space and then "Narration by…… Charlton Heston". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Heartily agree with you,
Beyond My Ken in all you have contributed to this whole strand. The info' box is not improved by the addition of the "ensemble" who are fully listed in the [far-too-brief] Lead and Cast sections.
As for you, Battleship Man, aggressive attitude, such as portrayed here this morning, will not be tolerated, so be warned! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 09:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NOW WE GO AGAIN. ACCUSSATIONS OF BEING A SOCK PUPPET. WHEN WILL THIS STOP FROM YOU CONSPIRACY FOLKS? 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
... while you hide behind your IP address. You are hiding by not registering as a User. You demonstrate a lack of understanding how
all of this works. ‑ ‑
Gareth Griffith‑Jones
The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)‑ ‑
Gareth Griffith‑Jones
The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑
18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC) I don't hide and I do not change boxes or who is behind a film. I edit plots and make spelling corrections. That is well proven by my edit history. So please stop you're false and misdirected accussations like all the others that have been found to be inaccurate and foolish. 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 18:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Armageddon (1998 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Cast Marshall Teague as Colonel Davis 195.147.208.139 ( talk) 00:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)