Posted by BethAB at dixon.ge.com on October 09, 2000 at 18:54:13:
In Reply to: Suspension of disbelief... posted by GDJenifer on October 09, 2000 at 17:09:33:
I am in total agreement that Armageddon was good. Maybe its not my absolute favorite, but one of them for sure. And to the guy who disagrees...First of all, supposing that the premise was possible (a metior the size of Texas is hurtling towards Earth) the way they took care of it would have worked becuase they dug down to a fault line so it split in two parts (not equal) parts...also there was debris left over that was going to hit the earth just as the showers earlier in the movie had. If you'd been paying attention instead of trying to predict the oh so predictable plot you'd have noticed those details. As for the merits of the movie, yes it was a little predictable however the acting was phenomenal and the characters were well written, well developed and captivating. The plot, while somewhat predictable was entertaining and fast paced enough that its predictability was barely noticebable. Unless you were trying to notice it which is, of course, what critics are there for. The trick is you have to go into it without expectation. Some people thought it had Affleck and Buchemi and Thornton in it so it must be something more high brow than most action flicks, its not. Some people have a preconception that Bruce Willis and/or Liv Tyler can't act so its deffinitely going to be bad. Some people go in expecting a typical action flick with nothing else going on (though they shouldn't because that's not Bruckheimer's style) and when there is actually other stuff there they are dissappointed. What bothers me most is that first you critisized the realism but then when it was pointed out to you that a movie you like was inrealistic as well you changed your focus. Just admit that you don't need a reason to not like it, you just didn't like it. Admit that that is your oppinion and don't try to act like you are superior for knowing how and why the premise in inplausible (which is not by the way). Unlike Star Trek because everything there is "based on some sort of scientific possibility or theory at least"...getting "beamed up" for example, or the computer on the ship that can create any kind of food you want in an instant...it's all very scientific that Star Trek, so much unlike Armageddon where things weren't based on real science at all, all that Physics and Geology and what not they just made that up.
: ..it's a MOVIE. Frankly, I could care less whether the "blowing it up from the middle" plot would really have worked. To me, that wasn't the main point of the movie. (And until you told me otherwise, I STILL wouldnt have known it wouldnt have worked.)
: : ...and as such told a story and sent a message (very deep actually) in a funny way. It's not meant to be realistic, just entertaining and insightful. What I meant about Armegeddon not being real is that it isn't even within the realm of scientific possibility. Star Trek is a great example of this. Everything in the show and movies is based on some sort of scientific possibility or theory at least. It is within the realm of possibility.
: : And the underlying message of Armegeddon is lost in a lame, VERY predicatable plot. I think the message was something like, "Big Rock Go Boom, Yeah!" Lots of movies have good intentions and underlying messages, but that doesn't make the movie good. The way the message is delivered is every bit as important as what the message is. It's like your parents want you to eat your vegetables. They could ask you, maybe take away TV privileges or something. Or they could beat you with a belt. Same message, "Eat your vegetables." But would rather have them ask you or beat you?
: : I feel like a movie as lame as Armegeddon beats you into seeing the message rather than asking you to see it. Dogma asks you to take a look at how ridiculous certain aspects of religion are. Kevin could very easily have gone WAY over the line and beaten the message into us, but that wouldn't have been entertaining or enjoyable.
: : And yes, a meteor could hit, and blowing it up from the center wouldn't fix it. That would make a million smaller chunks of meteor that still wouldn't be small enough to burn up in the atmosphere. And it wouldn't split exactly in two, completely change directions, all at the point of no return. There's a little thing called momentum, Newton's Laws.
: : : ..which OOZED realism. (No offense.)
: : : As with the above mentioned movie, you should be looking at the underlying themes and msgs, not necessarily the way the msg is delivered.
: : : GDJen
: : : ...and a meteor COULD hit. No offense, but I see that happening long before a talking shit demon.
: : : : no sarcasm...very lame, over done, not believeable, predictable plot
: : : : : sarcasm, in case you need ask.