Saw Armageddon... can still taste the bile (1 Viewer)

[TimDoss]

Ok Spock, let's dissect everything into logic.

Woman to man: "oh, our wedding doesn't have to be

expensive", ie, she'd be happy with a wedding with

an absence of expense. In other words she'd be happy with him

in an old t-shirt and jeans in his parents basement.

Those close to you must find you a pleasure to argue

with if you take what they say and tell them what they

really mean.

 

[Dana Fillhart]

I personally think it's absolutely ludicrous to explain why somebody found Movie X to be fun -- or why they liked it -- in objective terms. The converse of this is true as well: I think it's absolutely ridiculous to try to explain to another why Movie X was boring/aggravating/etc. (or why one hated/disliked it) in objective terms. Though one could point to Scene A of Movie X to elaborate on one's personal feelings of Movie X overall, such liking and disliking, fun and boredom, are completely subjective, and do not need to be rationalized.
However...
One can (perhaps should) explain in objective terms why a movie is good, for that gets into the movie's intrinsic value. Granted, there are aspects that are still very subjective, and identifying the difference between the objective and the subjective here is sometimes very difficult (hence the heated arguments on this forum, sometimes), but there are objective criteria for determining a bad or good movie, and unfortunately, too many people here have mixed up trying to rationalize something that can only be stated in subjectivity ("fun/liking") with that which should only be stated in objectivity ("good/bad"). In fact, I suggest that when one tries to describe movies in such objective terms, then he does not have the right any longer to be critical of one who puts forth a supposition that can only be based solely on subjectivity. In other words, if somebody says, "Movie X had too many scientific flaws to be realistic", he cannot rightfully make the next statement: "Therefore nobody should have fun watching this movie", because the latter is wholly subjective, and one cannot put subjective opinion in a cage of logical objectivity. If one's own internal subjective opinions, however, line up with the objective criteria, that person could rightfully claim that he or she did not like the movie because of said criteria...but he or she cannot rightfully claim that Person Y should or should not like the movie because of said criteria.
Got it? (*Whew*!)
Objectively: Armageddon is a horrible movie overall. I can go into great detail on why this is so, but many above have given excellent examples.
Subjectively: I cannot stand Arm(pit)ageddon, and I did not have much fun watching this movie (though admittedly there were some -- few and far between -- fun scenes). My reasons for not liking it are not limited to the scientific flaws (I was able to look beyond those -- for the most part; it was rather difficult at times, and as such did intrude every now and then on my enjoyment of the movie), but rather it resulted from the sometimes bad dialogue, oftentiems bad acting, and the rather atrocious scenarios the characters were portrayed in (particularly the animal cracker scene, and the overall concept of oil diggers going into space).
Conclusion: Arm(pit)ageddon is a ba-a-a-a-a-d movie, and (in this case) because of that I couldn't stand it ... but hey, if you liked it, more power to ya.

 

[Seth Paxton]

It's one thing to get science wrong simply because there are so many possible mistakes to be made and the costs of consulting might be prohibitive. Considering the goal of making an action film I have no problem with that.

Just as I had no problem with stuff in Forbidden Planet, etc.

That's why the ink blot scene is not a problem. It's a standard film motif for psych tests. It's not "flying in the face of science", just using something everyone identifies with.

Even a slip-up like having the whole world depicted as being in the daylight at the same time doesn't put me off, just because I can see it as a slip-up. If things like that ruined films there wouldn't be many good ones, including lots of documentaries that still have mistakes or fudge with reality.

This is why I agree with some of the real nitpicking films, even this film, go through.

No, the problem I have is when you CHOOSE "cool looking/sounding" at every turn, even if it means the diegetic reality being discarded. It's not just the science in this film that gets beat up by that either. Cool looking guys on motorcycles being chased by Feds in helicopters just to talk to a guy, conversations that take place in awkward locations just so it will look cool, 2 shuttles side by side just to look cool...

The entire film serves this "coolness" factor rather than a true NARRATIVE, let alone science or rational human behavior.

That a man can slide behind a truck and not be halfway killed is okay when it's clear that the man would do anything to get the Ark back and that he would only slide behind the truck because it was his last choice. That's what I mean. I can stand the larger than life heroes who come out lucky more often than not, just not contrived situations that wouldn't have to exist based on the environment/characters already presented.

Armageddon wants to be both sides of the coin, cartoonishly unrealistic yet deeply emotionally moving as well. Sorry, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[TimDoss]

So Dana, I'm still a little unclear... did you like the
movie??

 

[Brad_W]

Arm(pit)ageddon

Don't you mean, Arm-a-LAME-on?
I agree with what you said and that's why I gave reasons as to why I hated this film. Allow me to reiterate:
1. Micheal Bay directing.
2. Jerry Bruckheimer producing.
3. Bad dialogue
4. Slo-mo shot of Liv Tyler and Billy Bob Thorton standing in front of an American flag cutting to Astronauts walking to shuttle (back and forth, back and forth) while an Aerosmith song is playing.
5. Almost all heros live (see Deep Impact with a very original gutsy move on the Mimi Leder's part by killing off almost ALL of the main characters! Very original for modern big films).
6. Lame effects.
7. Superficial
8. The movie only pertains to what would happen if MTV was hit by meteors see flashy editing that only a person with ADD/ADHD could love (was it a music video or a movie?).
9. Unoriginal, since Deep Impact came out a couple months before (I know I know, but that's my opinion).
10. Oil drillers made into Nasa astronauts (keep in mind they had little time) instead of Nasa astronauts learning how to use a drill.
11. Scientific inaccuracies.
12. Over-dramatic
It's better to do this: Person A hates the movie. Person B loves the movie. Person A gives reasons why they hate it and Person B gives reasons why they love it. Possibly one or the other will a) undertand now why Person A hates the movie or Person B loves the movie, b) call it draw, or c) argue about whose correct or incorrect (which in turn throws everything back to the begining.)
These are opinions. There is no reason why anyone should convince someone that their view on a movie is wrong or right. I'm sure that the people that like the movie will gravitate with the others that like the movie and vice versa. Although, I would like to believe that you can disagree about a movie still happily agree on another movie.
I probably didn't really say anything here.

 

[mark_d]

Carl: when I said "nothing", I meant "means nothing", as in "means nothing because fun is what was important to me".
Clear now?

Not to me!
I just thought he meant that something that's fun doesn't necessarily need to be intelligent.
It can be, but doesn't need to be.
I never got that they were mutually exclusive.
For the record - and because everyone has started weighing in, I enjoyed Armageddon. It didn't offend my sensibilities in the way that, say, ID4 (similar Earth in peril popcorn flick) did. The scientific liberties taken in Amgdn didn't bother me. I know nothing of space travel, and don't care that much, other than ships in space look "cool" on film.
Hey, if Harry Stamper says that drilling is an art that takes years to figure out, and his team of roughnecks only have to be able to survive the journey and learn how to use a new rig then that's fine by me! I mean, we've already had space tourists now haven't we?
Mark

 

[Shawn C]

If I can rent a movie and think that I got $2.99 in entertainment, I'm convinced it's a good movie.
I guess it's more of a matter of economics to me. My parents were here for Thanksgiving and my dad wanted me to rent "The Crew".. Now that's not worth a $2.99 rental.
Do you get $2.99 worth of entertainment from Armageddon, you most certainly do. I usually figure that if a movie is worth $2.99, than it is also woryh buying, which I have done. Maybe this is why I own Smokey & The Bandit and Funny Farm and many other marginal movies. Not the greatest of movies, but certainly worth the $9.99 "Special Value" price.
Armageddon is all about having fun at the movies/at home. The only 'inaccuracy' that I didn't like was that you HAD TO DRILL 800 feet, NO LESS! 795 or 796 just wasn't good enough with a nuclear bomb. 800 or no dice.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Quote:

But here's the thing: If the creative staff had paid attention to basic physics, astronomy, etc., they could have made a movie that was just as exciting but didn't tick half the audience off with its stupidity.

 

[Brad_W]

$2.99 worth of entertainment

I am able to rent them for free.

So was it worth "free" to me? no.

 

[Allan Petersen]

I hated both "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact"!

Why the hell couldn't they just film Arthur C. Clarke's "Hammer of God" instead?

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

You guys need to first find the meaning of "is".

Armageddon just proves what Haollywood has become - No more intelligent Sci-Fi flicks, just braindead, stupid, dumb, CGI-Fest commercial flicks.

Hollywood has always made dumb movies. Sometimes there are good, intelligent movies that somehow get made.

 

[Joseph Young]

Seth:

Armageddon wants to be both sides of the coin, cartoonishly unrealistic yet deeply emotionally moving as well. Sorry, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

I couldn't have said it better myself! This is exactly what bothered me about Armageddon. The over-the-top, cartoonish qualities took total liberty over the patriotic, emotional theme running throughout the movie. Also, the [rant] overt [/rant] schmaltzy sentimentalism trampled all over the effectiveness of the comic-book style depictions. They cancelled each other out practically, creating a "non-movie."
God, what an offensive experience.
Joseph

 

[CharlesD]

For Armasmeggon to be have been a good value, they would have to have paid me $100 to see it, and even then I might have felt ripped off.

 

[RobertR]

I just thought he meant that something that's fun doesn't necessarily need to be intelligent.

So in the "fun" Armageddon, there was no "need" for them to wear spacesuits in a zero atmosphere environment?

If fun without intelligence is fine with you, why would they need to?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Hey,

Armageddon is a horrible movie, but I own it, and I watch it, and I enjoy it. It's ENTERTAINMENT. Does it insult the viewer...I don't think so. Not much more than any other action no-brainer. I agree that fun doesn't have to be intelligent, although I prefer intelligent movies. All movies pander to some extent; for a movie like this, I just ignore it, and allow myself to be entertained.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Dana Fillhart]

I thoroughly despise Arm(pit)ageddon, and I do not own the movie. I own quite a number of DVD's (over 1040), and that title will never be in my collection. Even if I got every single Criterion DVD ever made, I will have a gap of (at least) one in that set.
Does that answer your question sufficiently, Tim?

 

[TimDoss]

I think I got it. Thank you for clearing it up.

 

[cafink]

there are objective criteria for determining a bad or good movie

I could not possibly disagree more!

What are these criteria? How closely a movie emulates reality?

The point of a movie (excepting documentaries) is NOT to be realistic — it is to entertain and/or move the audience. If it achieves that goal, then it IS a good movie, no matter how bad it's depection of reality is. If it doesn't achieve that goal, then it is a bad movie, no matter how accurate it may be to reality.

In the case of "Armageddon," it's obvious from this thread that some people think it's a GOOD movie, and others think it's a BAD movie. That's okay, because it's just a subjective opinion. Neither view has any claim to objectivity. There's nothing intrinsically good or bad about the film beyond what the individual viewer gets out of it.

You can say that "Armageddon" has scientific flaws in it, and you'll recieve no argument there (because that IS an objective statement), but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether the movie is good or bad.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Wish I had gotten here soon enough to truly contribute. But it does hearten me to see that so many of us are agreed that Armageddon is one sorry, stupid, lame, and infantile abortion of a "film."

It represents a new level of cynicism on Hollywood's part.

Even the ritzy "NASA headquarters" is such nonsense. I used to work in the Torrance office building that was selected to represent "NASA headquarters."

Like all federal agencies, NASA is based in a fairly nondescript, standard-issue government office building in Washington. You're not going to see NASA's "meatball" logo anywhere on its facade.

My god, but what an awful, awful, intelligence-insulting movie.

 

[Jason Seaver]

In the case of "Armageddon," it's obvious from this thread that some people think it's a GOOD movie, and others think it's a BAD movie. That's okay, because it's just a subjective opinion. Neither view has any claim to objectivity.

That argument, though, seems to make having any kind of opinion a pointless exercise, or reduce any discussion of a film's merits to a Beavis-and-Butthead "that was cool!"/"that sucked!" level.

And even if it is "just" a subjective opinion... Acknowledging that is the beginning of a discussion, not just a way to render the discussion irrelevent. So while it may be impossible to agree on an objective opinion, you can at least break down the reasons why you have your personal subjective one. That may not make it objective, but it does at least make it more worth relating, as opposed to a completely subjective opinion without any reasoning.