From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Albums      (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Films     (Rated Start-Class)   (Rated Mid importance) Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale. Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no WikiProject Science Fiction     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

I just figured out something, this could be where the terroist of 9/11 got the idea.

• in the movie, it shows a 2-second shot of the World Trade Center getting hit. This may be different because it hits the tower with the radio antenna first and then it shows the other tower without the antenna on fire almost at the floors where it actually hits, the action in the movie is almost the same as what during 9/11.

• A Taxi Driver says in the movie,"Saddam Hussein is bombing us."

- Chris

• I get sick of people saying all this "9/11 in dollar bills!" "9/11 in Wingdings!" stuff. For one thing, the Chrystler building, the Grand Central Station, and various other landmarks are also destroyed. Remember, back then no one remotely imagined terrorist attacks as anything more than bombs going off on street level. Besides, neither WTC tower is actually knocked down, and the Taxi driver just says "It could be terrorist attacks" along with 3 or 4 other things.

-Tower7Revived

• I agree it's revelant to include a WTC 9/11 comment in the text of the main article. Let's be objective - the film showed an accurate future image - one of the towers on fire following a disaster. Summer audiences were asked to suspend disbelief and imagine a disaster event in New York, very close in time to something that actually happened 3 years later.

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?

What I think is slightly more relevant is the fact that the clip in question was cut from post 9/11 showings on television for sensitivity, might be worth a mention.Eddus

Does anyone have a picture of "Dottie" (the meteor) for this page?, i think it's essential.

Movie text [1]

Contents 1 Dottie 1.1 Where in Paris? 1.2 YouTube links 1.3 Freedom's Heat shield? 1.4 one of the worst movies 1.5 Synopsis needs revising 1.6 NO CHAPTER SECTIONS 1.7 Shockwaves 1.8 Scientific Inaccuracies section of article 2 Meteor 3 The Bible 4 Fair use rationale for Image:Armageddon score.jpg 5 Cast section 6 Use of the word 'ironic' 6.1 WikiProject class rating 7 Trivia section 7.1 hollywood junk 7.2 Gunpowder and space 7.3 Vibration Destruction? 7.4 Scientific Inaccuracies

[edit] Dottie

Take your pick. In sequence, there are some between the 6th and 7th, but they are so closeup and you do not get to see it in it's entirety. The ones I tried to take are the ones showing the entire thing.

Cheers! -therearenospoons 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where in Paris?

"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)

After the strike, the overhead shot shows what I assume is an impact crater. Near the mid-bottom of the picture is the Arc de Triomphe (spelling?) Douglasnicol 15:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

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)

YouTube has already cut deals with many content providers. As such, I don't think you can remove links based on restrictions on linking to copyright violations. We need to respect copyright, but need not be paranoid about linking to things that may or may not be violations. -Quasipalm 05:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom's Heat shield?

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)

[edit] one of the worst movies

The movie is corny and trying too hard to be funny. The plot is stupid and typical hollywood which shouts "The US saves the world again". The screen writer should be ashamed of themselves as they portray other cultures with their ignorant perception of what they would be like. (i.e. Shanghai is represented by poor families floating on wooden rafts eating rice) Would you bloody americans like to see Cowboys eating macdonalds as a symbol for america? No, you want beach boys, apple pie and the 67 mustang. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.214.156.18 (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

alrighty then User:Saget53 10:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

alright stfu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.79.196.46 (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I know I'm coming a bit late to this discussion but I agree: it is one of the worst films ever made, if not THE worst popular film of the 90s. Which sorta validates (look out, potential ego trip coming...) the idea that the summary is too long & gets too bloated because every fanboy out there wants to add a myriad of details to make the summary seem more dramatic. Plus, the grammar is getting awful. Is there a way to recommend this one for the "only registered users may make changes" tag? Tommyt 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, that's only for vandalism. But by all means take a hatchet to the plot summary. Oh, and why the hell is there a list of deaths?! They should be integrated into the synopsis. Cop 633 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty bad, all right, but my main objection is the pathetic "science" misused in the movie. And, apparently, having just one "can't follow the rules rebel" wasn't enough, they needed at least a dozen of them, as NASA could never figure out how to drill a hole without them. StuRat 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't blame all Americans for this dreck, Unsigned, only Hollywood-Americans. I think they hit just about every plot cliche known to schmaltzy moviedom in this turkey, and I've finally figured out why; they spent all their money on flags to wave in the background of every dramatic scene, so there was nothing left to hire decent writers or science advisors. (Yet they found the dough to hire a gaggle of strippers. Go figure.) Noclevername 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis needs revising

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)

[edit] NO CHAPTER SECTIONS

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)

[edit] Shockwaves

Removed this line:

An explosion in space loses much of its efficiency as there is no atmosphere to begin with; without an atmosphere there is nothing to propagate the shockwave.

...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)

[edit] Scientific Inaccuracies section of article

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).

[edit] Meteor

Please note similarities between this film and the 1979 star studded fiasco. (205.250.167.76 01:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] The Bible

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))

What the hell does the Bible have to do with this, and I would hardly call it B-List. Douglasnicol 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you don't have to say what the hell does the Bible... gosh but true you are correct. These anonymous spammers lol. GoldenGoose100 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Armageddon score.jpg

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)

[edit] Cast section

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)

[edit] Use of the word 'ironic'

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.

[edit] WikiProject class rating

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)

[edit] Trivia section

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)

[edit] hollywood junk

The two "space shuttles" in the film aren't space shuttles- they are movie madeup super-spaceships called X-79s (or something) "they were developed with co-operation between NASA and the air force". They have canard wings and upturned winglets on the ends of their main wings. When the space shuttle gets blown up earlier in the movie it is differant from these ships. The Mir space station? Hmmm... I remember it being differant from Mir, espesially the hidious oxygen "fuel" tanks on the ends of those booms. And the "spinning to make artificial gravity?" nope. Just a way to make the movie cheaper and saving money on zero-G effects. Thats why I like Movies like Apollo 13 and (Okay maybe it isnt a movie as such) Voyage to the planets. They simulated zero G in one of those parabolic arc planes. (voyage to the planets also had artificial gravity, but this was scientifically accurate, they were spinning the right way and it was to show how gravity is needed for people traveling in space for long periods). And the asteroid not looking like a potato? that is an intentional inaccuracie, I read in some magazine once that the director wanted the astroid to look "like it was going fast". T.Neo 09:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gunpowder and space

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 [[2]]. 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)

[edit] Vibration Destruction?

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.

[edit] Scientific Inaccuracies

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)

I removed this part, it's just as nonsensical as the movie science:

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.

This notion of gravity "grasping on" is utter nonsense. You are under the influence of a body's gravity whatever velocity you pass it at. Escape velocity is the boundary between lower velocities that result in being captured into orbit or collision with the body, and higher velocities that result in you passing it by (but with modified trajectory and velocity). It's not a constant, it depends on how far you are from the body's center of gravity. Quoted figures for celestial bodies are usually at the surface. Furthermore, escape velocity refers only to the vector component of velocity on a radial line from the body's center of gravity, your velocity in your direction of travel may be higher.

Here's the killer, to get a gravitational slingshot from a body you would have to be travelling above escape velocity, otherwise you would be captured by it, rather than accelerated towards your target. Whoever wrote this was just piling bad wiki-science on top of bad movie science. If someone with decent physics knowledge has the time, this section need a thorough review - I'm sure there are more bogus scientific "corrections" 86.16.117.32 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need all the "Scientific Inaccuracies" in the article? First of all, it's a film, not real life; secondly, if people cared they could just click on the link which is on the page anyway. Alexrushfear (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)