The disaster movie has been a staple of the entertainment landscape for decades. As with any genre, there are a number of entries that stand out from the rest, offering extreme thrills and often pushing boundaries visually. The 1990s in particular was a big decade for the disaster genre, with films chronicling all manner of natural disasters and planetary threats.
When it comes to natural disasters, titles like Twisted (1996), Dante’s Peak (1997), and Volcano (1997) showed striking effects as nature wreaks havoc on various communities. When the disaster film genre is mixed with science fiction, the stakes often get even higher.and humanity itself may face extinction. Independence Day (1996) was a seminal entry in this regard, leaning particularly towards science fiction, but Deep impact (1998), which shows a comet on a collision course with Earth, offered similar thrills without an alien threat. Another 1998 film took the same approach and was an even bigger hit.
Armageddon’s precision doesn’t impress a former astronaut
But Michael Bay’s Disaster Movie Succeeds on One Front
A former NASA astronaut analyzes scenes from Armageddongranting the sci-fi disaster film a note of woeful accuracy. Directed by Michael Bay, the 1998 film remains a seminal entry in the genre, following a team of deep drillers as they embark on a mission to prevent a massive asteroid from destroying all life on Earth. The film, which features an impressive cast including Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, Billy Bob Thornton, Owen Wilson and Liv Tyler, was a huge box office success and features a number of bombastic Bay-style action sequences.
In a new video for Insiderformer NASA astronaut Nicole Stott analyzes selected scenes from Armageddon for its realism and, unsurprisingly, the film gets a lot wrong. While she admits that a scene in which a space shuttle’s windows break presents accurate elements, as this is a very real threat that astronauts face, the film is often filled with unrealistic “Hollywood” elements, such as characters not wearing helmets. Check out Stott’s analysis below and his terrible rating for the film out of 10:
“There are many layers just to maintain the pressure and structural integrity of a spacecraft’s windows, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be damaged in space. We used to inspect them, like microscopically inspect them, and even small dust marks in the space could cause an imperfection in the window. They are finding large chunks of asteroid coming towards them from the opposite direction. They have a lot of energy going into this. I think there is every reason to believe that windows can break.
“As an astronaut, it is frustrating to watch these types of scenes. It’s kind of the Hollywood part where you want to see the actor’s face so he doesn’t wear the helmet, and somehow in the end he tries to recover by putting the helmet on at the last minute. You would definitely be wearing a helmet from the start.
“Guess I would have to give this Armageddon clip a two. [out of 10]. I would give this clip a 10 out of 10 for the excitement over how it all went down.”
Our opinion on Armageddon’s lack of realism
Bay’s Sci-Fi Disaster Movie Doesn’t Need to Be Accurate
Armageddon presenting scientific inaccuracies is not surprising and is not necessarily a bad thing either. Bay has a recognizable filmmaking style that often prioritizes style over substancewhich is why so many of his films end up being quite entertaining, if not particularly thoughtful.
Armageddon remains one of Bay’s best films, even if it features intriguing elements like deep drillers being trained like astronauts rather than the other way around. As Stott says, Armageddon It may not be very accurate, but it certainly provides excitement, and that’s the main thing.
Source: Insider