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

[cafink]

Maybe not on a totally objective level, but if those flaws elicit groans from the audience, that seems to contribute to it being a bad movie.

You're right, of course. Syaing that accurate representation of reality has NOTHING to do with a movie being good or bad was probably not the best way to word it. How about this…

You can say that "Armageddon" has scientific flaws in it, and you'll recieve no argument there, but in and of itself, that doesn't determine whether the movie is good or bad.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I'll go you one better on the "elicited groans" from the audience, Jason.
This movie made BANK. One of the top movies of the year, financially. So it must follow that it is "good," because LOTS of people liked it.
Is that accurate? It must have entertained some people to make that money.
As for the argument regarding opinions being subjective...as much as I enjoy a good trashing, simply insulting a movie is the same as insulting a positive opinion on that movie. At least to some...
Many didn't like it. That's fine. I got some enjoyment out of it. In my mind, I win. We all paid Even better, I enjoy the criticisms of it (the intelligent ones), because it is a ridiculous film! So I get to win twice.
Oh well
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Greg_C_T]

At the risk of making my name "mud" in this very much enjoyed HTF, count me as one of the many who enjoyed Armageddon. Sure it has lots of inaccuracies and violates laws of physics, but has anyone here has ever watched a James Bond flick, True Lies, or Mission: Impossible ('96)? There are more scenes in those movies that pull me out of the viewing experience than in Armageddon.
I own the Criterion, and have been asked to show it on my home theater many times by friends. Ninety percent of the time, people leave my place pleased. No, they haven't expanded their minds, or solved world hunger, but they relaxed and had fun for a couple hours. Usually the women have even shed a few tears (never happened to me, mind you)
The movie takes liberties with some things, but they also did a good job of showing a sense of duty, patriotism, and sacrifice. Plus, it's the first time NASA let an outside film crew on the shuttle ramps. That's gotta count for something.
Oh, btw, the machine gun on the front of the Armadillos was to blast away debris and rock formations on the asteroid (check the deleted scenes on the Criterion discs).

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

This movie made BANK. One of the top movies of the year, financially. So it must follow that it is "good," because LOTS of people liked it.

No, that just means LOTS of people went to SEE it, not that they liked it.

 

[Jack Briggs]

A lot of people bought Milli Vanilli's "Grammy Award-winning" album too, but that didn't make it "good."

 

[Jason Seaver]

insulting a movie is the same as insulting a positive opinion on that movie.

The thing is, the folks who despise Armageddon generally have a pretty good list of things that support their disdain, whereas the folks who like it have been the ones saying "it's just fun, okay? Turn your brain off! It's just a movie! You must not really like movies if you can't enjoy Armageddon!" and so on.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Well, to make that much money requires people to enjoy it...it made sales on the home video market.

Sarcasm, folks. I did NOT equate $=good...I was refuting "groans from some"=bad!

Jason...you are dead wrong on opinions. Some are more VALID; they are all equally valuable. I am quite certain mine is as good as yours.

Lastly, I guess my opinion is worth dogshit. Since liking Armageddon=Bad Taste. I guess HTF is slipping up by having me and my "ilk" on here. There should be membership requirements.

Those last comments were very insulting.

But, all in good fun.

Drooling on myself,

Chuck

 

[Marvin Richardson]

What kills me about this movie is seeing that they used a NASA Consultant. Oddly enough the same one who consulted on Deep Impact.

Question: If it doesn't matter how realistic it is, then why have a NASA Consultant? They evidently (from listening to the commentary on the Criterion Collection) disregarded much of the "consulting" anyway.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

What makes a movie good is the fact that I like it. Anyone else's opinion doesn't matter to me. Fanboys going on and on about a particular performer/filmmaker/director etc..., I could care less about that. I didn't like Armegeddon but so what, I don't think it is my job to "elevate" the masses to become film buffs. If someone liked it great, let them enjoy it. Remember movies are a part of life, not the other way around.

 

[Marvin Richardson]

What makes a movie good is the fact that I like it. Anyone else's opinion doesn't matter to me. Fanboys going on and on about a particular performer/filmmaker/director etc..., I could care less about that. I didn't like Armegeddon but so what, I don't think it is my job to "elevate" the masses to become film buffs. If someone liked it great, let them enjoy it. Remember movies are a part of life, not the other way around.

I don't understand why that should preclude us from discussing the movie's pros and cons. Its a debate, a discussion, an exchange of opinions. I value everyone's opinion here, even if I don't agree with it or think is completely off the wall.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

I don't understand why that should preclude us from discussing the movie's pros and cons. Its a debate, a discussion, an exchange of opinions. I value everyone's opinion here, even if I don't agree with it or think is completely off the wall.

Discuss all you want, I am going home so that I can spend more time with my kids.

 

[cafink]

The thing is, the folks who despise Armageddon generally have a pretty good list of things that support their disdain, whereas the folks who like it have been the ones saying "it's just fun, okay? Turn your brain off! It's just a movie! You must not really like movies if you can't enjoy Armageddon!" and so on.

What makes a list of scientific accuracies or inaccuracies a good measure of the quality of a movie, while the level of "just fun" is not a good measure? Again, you're bringing your subjective opinion to the table by saying that your reason for not liking the movie is better than my reason for liking it.

There's nothing wrong with having a different opinion from someone, and there's no reason you can't have an intelligent discussion about those opinions, but you shouldn't try to justify your opinion by claiming it has some sort of objective basis to it. It doesn't.

 

[Jason Seaver]

What makes a list of scientific accuracies or inaccuracies a good measure of the quality of a movie, while the level of "just fun" is not a good measure? Again, you're bringing your subjective opinion to the table by saying that your reason for not liking the movie is better than my reason for liking it.

That's just one element that's been offered in this one discussion. Pointing out plot holes, migraine-inducing editing, inattention to detail, etc., is putting something behind your opinion, rather than justifying it with some sort of circular logic like "I liked it because it was fun and I didn't expect too much out of it."

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I feel like I'm surrounded by a bunch of old farts. The way these arguments are going, it's like you can't watch a movie for fun anymore without the risk of being called an idiot. For some people, it's like the first movie they watched coming out of the womb was something by Goddard or Eisenstein.

Sheesh. Sorry for having such pedestrian tastes...

 

[Marvin Richardson]

I feel like I'm surrounded by a bunch of old farts. The way these arguments are going, it's like you can't watch a movie for fun anymore without the risk of being called an idiot. For some people, it's like the first movie they watched coming out of the womb was something by Goddard or Eisenstein.

Sheesh. Sorry for having such pedestrian tastes...

Oh, I see. You're allowed to have your opinion and like the movie, but if I have a contrary opinion and express it during a discussion of OPINIONS then I'm calling you an idiot, and by inference from your post am some kind of snob?

I really don't understand this defensive attidue out of some people when they like the movie. If you like it, great, enjoy! But at least bring some kind of substantial reasoning as to why you liked the movie (which, admittedly, some have done). The same goes for people who didn't like the movie. I don't see where any of this has turned into a name calling contest.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Oh, I see. You're allowed to have your opinion and like the movie, but if I have a contrary opinion and express it during a discussion of OPINIONS then I'm calling you an idiot, and by inference from your post am some kind of snob?
I really don't understand this defensive attidue out of some people when they like the movie. If you like it, great, enjoy! But at least bring some kind of substantial reasoning as to why you liked the movie (which, admittedly, some have done). The same goes for people who didn't like the movie. I don't see where any of this has turned into a name calling contest.

I go and take a dump for five minutes, come back, and already somebody has responded to something I've said. I feel special
What are you worried about? You ain't one of them. As a matter of fact, you've been rather cordial in voicing your opinions..... So far

 

[CharlesD]

What makes a list of scientific accuracies or inaccuracies a good measure of the quality of a movie, while the level of "just fun" is not a good measure?

This "movie" masquerades as sci-fi so the way it treats the science is relevant, but you're right lousy, implausable, inconsistent science alone does not make this movie bad. I found every aspect of this movie so excerable that there was no element of fun in it for me at all. Even ID4 (another "sci-fi" movie I despise) did have some "fun" in it, parts of it I can even enjoy watching, but not Armasmegmadon, when i think of this movie the words "steaming" and "pile" come to mind.

As far as opinions goes, everyone has one and everyone is entitled to one. Its pointless to argue whose opinion is "worth" more. If someone who loves moves like ID4 & The Rock says a certain movie is great, I can draw my own conlcusions as to whether I would like it or not based on my knowledge of their tastes. Its not that this opinion is worth less than someone else who loves "art house" movies, its just that that opinion is less relevant to my own tastes (and vice versa of course.)

 

[Brad_W]

Just remember the thread topic because this thread is about how bad Armageddon is.

 

[RobR]

Armageddon tired of it.

 

[mark_d]

If someone who loves moves like ID4 & The Rock says a certain movie is great, I can draw my own conlcusions as to whether I would like it or not based on my knowledge of their tastes.

Hmmm...

That's the funny thing about taste - it isn't that cut and dried. For example, I enjoy Armageddon but really detest ID4. I liked Die Hard, Passenger 57 and Executive Decision but couldn't stand Under Siege. The Hunt for Red October and Crimson Tide pushed my buttons but I thought U571 was excrement. Out of Sight, Get Shorty, yes, Jackie Brown, no. Mortal Kombat - pleasure, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation - pain. You get the idea.

I generally base my decisions on whether or not to see a movie on the subject matter, the talent involved and the genre.

I do read reviews - although less than I used to - and unless something I fancy gets unavoidable press that unanimously stinks to high heaven (Tomb Raider, Mission to Mars, for example), I will check the movie out. Those that I miss on these grounds I will catch up with on rental.

I've stuck with a limited genre here intentionally - this is an Armageddon thread. My tastes do stretch beyond modern action/thriller/adventure movies, but it is a area that I've had some mileage from.

You can't pigeonhole tastes. Well, you can if you want, but you'd be wrong to do so.

I think I've laboured my point enough now.

Mark