[Jeff Kohn]

Quote:

Unlike "Armageddon, which really did try to look as if it was serious.

You know I really don't see how people can say this. There was nothing serious about Armageddon, it was your typical summer blockbuster action-flick with all the usual cliches, stereotypes, and over-the-top action. If you didn't like Armageddon, that's fine. But don't try to say its biggest flaw is that it tries to be taken as a serious movie. If you watched it with that attitude you totally missed the point and probably shouldn't bother watching action flicks in the future.

That said, The Core looks too stupid to even be considered mindless fun based on the previews and what I've read about it. Serious or not, there's only so much absurdity I can take in a movie that is set in a fictitious version of the real world. Armageddon skated very close to that line, but the Core appears too go far beyond it.

[Alex Spindler]

I forgot to mention this in my review, but did anyone else notice just how bad the score was of this movie. I mean, it was seriously Meteor caliber. I was wondering why the movie reminded me of that film so much and I realized the score was the reason. Especially the shuttle crash.

[Quentin]

Both Armageddon and The Core are stupid and silly. The comparison in and of itself is pretty stupid and silly, but trying to argue that one is better than the other?

As for Armageddon OR The Core EVER taking themselves seriously...uhhhhh, no.

Armageddon isn't more serious - it's more melodramatic. I'm not sure how many fake tears Affleck and Willis needed for their "goodbye" scene, but I understand they ordered in bulk. And then Bruce did it again saying goodbye to Liv. Not serious, but pretty clearly going for misty eyes with no apologies and no subtlety. Add to that the WONDERFUL (turn on your sarcasm meter) love story with Liv/Ben, or even the hilarious "reunion" of Will Patton and his son or the POWERFUL strains of the Trevor Rabin score...and you have hambone city.

The Core plays it only slightly different - less tears, more opportunities for heroics, etc. But, anyone who sees it as taking itself seriously isn't watching the same movie as I saw. "Unobtanium"? Tucci at his hammiest (and having one HELL of a fun time)? Torching a peach? Wild birds causing ridiculous havoc?

Two silly movies, two fun times. I saw Armageddon at a special midnight preview. A blast. I saw the Core at a packed late night Hollywood showing. A great time.

I will never watch either again unless I'm really tired, really bored, really lonely, AND really desperate.

[Dave Wy]

There is alot of discussion about movies such as this, Armeggedon, ID4, etc. and their questionable science. I think that all of these movies fall into the genre "Science FICTION". I think these movies are to be enjoyed, not over-analysized to death. I have not yet seen "The Core" due to my wife's reluctance to let me take my 8-year old, but I plan to soon. I don't think these things are meant to be taken too seriously, just enjoyed. Just my opinion.
Dave

[RobertR]

Quote:

I think that all of these movies fall into the genre "Science FICTION".

Contrary to what you imply, the term "science fiction" does NOT mean that you can say "the hell with the laws of physics and science in general. I'll make up my own fictional laws of physics that defy known physical laws without explanation". Nor does the "fiction" label mean that you can make up your own rules of logic and rational behavior.

These films are more properly labeled as Hollywood fantasies.

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Quote:

and you have hambone city.

Next exit on the right!

-Dennis

[Jeff Kleist]

Quote:

Contrary to what you imply, the term "science fiction" does NOT mean that you can say "the hell with the laws of physics and science in general. I'll make up my own fictional laws of physics that defy known physical laws without explanation". Nor does the "fiction" label mean that you can make up your own rules of logic and rational behavior.

For example, the Armageddon shuttles fired thrusters in proper accordance with the laws of physics. The people in Armageddon were not paralyzed the second they equalized the pressure in the airlock. Therefore my point is still valid that Armageddon is far more accurate than The Core when it comes to physics

[Jack Briggs]

There you go again.

No matter how "advanced" those "shuttles" in Armageddon were, space vehicles cannot perform aerobatic manuevers in space. End of story. QED.

So, in Internet lingo, "What RobertR said."

Science fiction is fiction involving the effects of science on humanity. For it to be "science fiction," the science must be plausible. And for it to be good fiction, its internal logic must be consistent.

[Andy_S]

Quote:

No matter how "advanced" those "shuttles" in Armageddon were, space vehicles cannot perform aerobatic manuevers in space. End of story. QED.

You just ruined all of the Star Wars movies for me

[Jeff Kleist]

Quote:

space vehicles cannot perform aerobatic manuevers in space. End of story. QED.

Why not? As long as you fired the thrusters properly it should work fine. I'm not saying you're wrong Jack, but I can't figure out why it couldn't work with vectored thrust and maneuvering thrusters

Obviously there are certain things that require air

[RobertR]

Quote:

space vehicles cannot perform aerobatic manuevers in space. End of story. QED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why not?

Because there is no air in space. The prefix "aero" in aerobatic refers to AIR. Now, if you said the shuttles could perform thrust vectoring manuevers, that would be a different thing.

But they didn't. They performed manuevers that require the presence of AIR.