Armageddon vs Deep Impact (1998)

Post Reply New Topic

I like both movie. Armageddon had a loot cool stuff and special effects, but i think Deep Impact are scientifically plausible, and had very touching romantic subplot,
There is nothing more beautiful than love in the face of disaster, especially when the orchestra plays to the end

But talking seriously with movie are more reliable in your opinion?

I like Armageddon more - very dramatic how Bruce Willis volunteers himself to save the earth from doom and has the last goodbye to his daughter - that's a forever-ingrained moment in cinematic history

Note how both movies entail the World Trade Center undergoing destruction from the disaster's wrath, which made it kind of eerie - I remember on 9/11/2001 how people were saying it seemed like something out of a disaster movie...

IMHO both are depressing for their own reasons.

"Armageddon" had more "top-tier" actors, but I still think "Deep Impact" has a better story. Its more personal, and less flashy.

Agreed. Deep Impact is more personal. Not to mention having Morgan Freeman as president. Of course, Armageddon has that AMAZING explosion when the asteroid was split in half.

i eagerly awaited the release of "deep impact", but i was disappointed with it. i was impatient for the romance scenes to end so i could see the "ground breaking" CGI effects, and when the impactor was rendered, i was stunned at the lack of realism.

look at it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNtsVP42bOE[/youtube]

at 1 second, the comet streaks overhead, but the brightness of the object would render it un-capturable by any camera. if it was a world destroying impact, then it would have been so bright and radiant that it would have incinerated almost everything under it's trajectory, including any device that could attempt to record it. it looks dull in the video.

the billowing "smoke" that emanates from the comet is stationary and does not travel with the comet for any distance. given the speed of the comet's entry (i do not know what it was supposed to be considering they never revealed that information in the movie), then even the most rarefied vapor that is vaporized from the object would have sufficient momentum not to immediately come to a halt once it has been ejected from the surface of the impactor.

also, the vapor does not have time to assume the flocculation depicted in the video sequence because the impactor is supersonic many times over.

also, there is some sort of wake on the ocean that follows the path of the impactor and it does not make sense. if it is an atmospheric compression, then it's width is very under represented considering the impactor would be almost 10 miles in diameter (to be a world destroying event). maybe it is a poor attempt at depicting a reflection of the supposed vapor trail.

then at 9 seconds, it shows "from space" the moment of impact, and the outward rush of the shockwave vastly exceeds the impactors entry speed. and to add insult to injury, there is a sound track that plays the supposed sound before we see the light of the impact.


the rendering of the artists impression of the water wave was atrocious and it did not follow any true fundamental dynamics. breakers need to have their undampened amplitude no more than a quarter of the distance of their unbaffled frequency otherwise they collapse way off shore. there is no way that the continental shelf is deep enough to support such towers of water in a self contained way.

i can imagine a rapidly accumulating 1,000 foot rushing tide as a result of the impact, but it is not possible for breakers of the size depicted to occur anywhere where there is a continental shelf.

whatever. there is so much more to say, but i will leave it at that.

The dramatic aspect makes Armageddon a favorite of mine. The scientific aspect is what I liked about Deep Impact, and the fact that one impact actually messed things up really badly.

I prefer Deep Impact because I like that main star - the woman who played the reporter. And I thought the film was quite funny, because when they sent the space ship to destroy the comet they failed and made it worse. Then the president had to go on TV and tell the viewers that instead of one meteor heading for Earth there are now two!

I thought Armageddon had less going on it it and was just meant to show off some CGI's

I nominate Morgan Freeman for both President AND God.

ruveyn