Skip to content

Space Dads for America: Armageddon

45
Share

Space Dads for America: Armageddon

Home / Space Dads for America: Armageddon
Featured Essays It's Not That Deep

Space Dads for America: Armageddon

By

Published on June 5, 2018

45
Share

It’s not that Michael Bay isn’t to blame for Armageddon. I want to be very clear about that. Bay should absolutely be held responsible for the film he inflicted on an unsuspecting world in 1998. But for all that the weight of guilt rests on his shoulders and his alone, one would be remiss were one to forget the serpent twined irrevocably ’round the roots of that motion picture: America’s subconscious desire to play the abusive father figure to a grateful world.

(There’s a lot of material here, reader. I’m dismayed to inform you that, despite what many literary wanks would like to tell you about the shallow nature of genre cinema, Armageddon is embarrassingly ripe for analysis. Let’s drill down (sorry) to the bottom of the longest montage ever made. Here we go. Armageddon.)

Armageddon is a film composed of two neatly dovetailed love letters to toxic patriarchs. Neither can be called the primary narrative, any more than one of the four cold-opens of the picture can be called a ‘beginning.’ Grace Stamper (Liv Tyler) learns to appreciate her abusive father, Harry (Bruce Willis); her story unfurls in unwavering parallel to the story of the American military industrial complex saving the whole world. Well, the whole world except for Paris. Sorry, Paris.

Armageddon desperately wants the viewer to see Harry Stamper as the hero of the story, because in this parable of international diplomacy, Harry Stamper embodies America. All he wants to do is drill for oil, isolate his daughter from any support networks outside of the ones over which he has direct control, and kill any man who tries to form a meaningful peer relationship with her. In the scene which introduces the dynamic between Grace and her father—a scene in which he repeatedly fires a shotgun at her boyfriend, A.J. (Ben Affleck)—Harry asserts that he has repeatedly asked Grace to call him “Dad.” The camera lingers on his soulful eyes, and the viewer is reminded that he is Sympathetic. He wants what’s best for his daughter, the camera explains. It just happens that what’s best for her is the complete sublimation of her personal agency. Is that so much to ask?

Meanwhile, in Outer Space Problems, an asteroid is headed toward Earth. The asteroid is comparable in size to several different countries that America has bombed, but it is described as Texan, lest we forget who is most important in this film. Life as we know it will be destroyed if the asteroid is allowed to fulfill its diabolical plan to smack Earth real good.

America must save the day.

The answer, of course, is nuclear. The asteroid threat justifies the existence of the American Military Industrial Complex the way nothing else ever could. “Thank goodness we have nuclear bombs,” shouts Michael Bay over the half-eaten remains of a Thanksgiving dinner you wish you had found an excuse to miss, “because what if there was an asteroid?!”

Because this movie is science fiction, NASA is well-funded enough to save the day. The United States Government is competent and useful, the movie tells us, and so NASA and the military work together seamlessly to train Harry Stamper’s team of oil rig roughnecks. This demonstration of American ingenuity harmonizes with the film’s attempt to convince the viewer that Stamper is smart and useful—that his overt displays of hypermasculine aggression are important facets of his unique leadership style. Just as America needs to maintain a large munitions stockpile in order to free the world from the asteroid menace, Harry Stamper needs to shout a lot in order to push his rag-tag team of ne’er-do-wells to feats of heroism. It’s just necessary.

Midway through the endless training montage that makes up the second act of this film, poor purehearted Steve Buscemi utters the line “in part, we all feel like a bunch of daddies here.” (I am here compelled to note that Buscemi was lured to this film with the false promise that his character, Rockhound, would not be a vaguely pedophilic dirtbag). In these eleven words, Rockhound efficiently summarizes the primary thesis of the film. Most explicitly, he highlights the social isolation to which Grace has been subject throughout her life. She was raised on an oil rig among men who work for her possessive, overbearing father; she lacks a community of peers, because the men who have helped raise her all see themselves as father figures. The sole exception to this rule is, of course, Ben Affleck — the Ferdinand to her Miranda, the only nonpaternal figure in her life, with whom she has fallen in love.

But that’s not all Rockhound is getting at. The phrase “we all feel like a bunch of daddies here” is rich with nuance. Rockhound is, per the film’s insistence, a supergenius; we know this because he solves a Rubik’s cube, like, real fast. Thus, it only makes sense that his words would carry layers of intention that run beyond “please stop trying to lock your adult daughter in an oil-rig tower.” He’s telling Harry Stamper to chill out for God’s sake, yes—but he is also speaking to the deeper importance of the work that the oil-riggers-cum-astronauts are carrying out. They are become daddies to the world, protective fathers who will sacrifice their lives should the need arise. They are protective patriots, serving their country and, by extension, enabling their country to serve the globe. Per that complementarian model of patriarchal duty, all the America they represent asks in return for their sacrifice is the willing submission of the world it’s leading.

(If ever you should doubt my devotion to you, reader, please remember that I have now performed for your enjoyment a deep dive on the phrase “we all feel like a bunch of daddies.” The lord is tallying my sins and the weight of my soul grows with every passing hour, etc.)

As anyone who has studied narrative is aware, the Training Montage portion of the film must give way to the Space Explosions section. This movement could easily have slipped into an accidental indictment of the tightly-controlled Dad’s-in-charge reality of Grace Stamper’s life. As the oil riggers destroy a Russian space station and jump ravines in low-to-moderate gravity, the viewer is treated to several intercut shots of Grace languishing at Mission Control, draped across tables and waiting for her daddies to return from the sea of space. When she’s asked why she hasn’t left Mission Control to go somewhere more comforting, she chokes out the truest line of the film: “I don’t have anywhere else to go.”

If not for the expert craftsmanship of the Father Knows Best theme of the film, this scene would read as a condemnation of the abusive isolation of women by dangerously controlling patriarchs. Fear not; the viewer is at no risk of such an apprehension. As often as one sees Liv Tyler gazing woefully into the middle distance, one is also treated to shots of the world watching America’s attempt to save the day. In parallel with an achingly Rockwellian representation of the America We Need To Protect—pickup trucks and barbershops and churches—eyes across the globe are on the Space Dads. In case this montage of global desperation for successful American intervention isn’t convincing enough, the viewer is treated to the following newscaster exposition:

“While the consciousness of the planet is unified, focused on the NASA mission taking place right now in the vast ocean of space, we’re now in the final hours of the mission as the Freedom and Independence prepare to slingshot around the moon.”

The international focus on America’s heroism is reflected in miniature by a small family, composed of a mother and her young son. These two characters are given a subplot that is coherent only if one recognizes the thesis of the film as “Dads! Forgive them!” The boy is the child of one of the hero oil-riggers, Chick (Will Patton). Chick breaks a court order in an attempt to give the boy a space shuttle toy before the big mission. The mother tells her son that the man with the space shuttle toy is just a salesman—but when the boy recognizes that salesman as one of the heroes who has gone to space to save the world, she decides to tell him the truth. “That man’s not a salesman,” she says, in a move that certainly won’t psychologically scar the boy for years to come. “That’s your daddy.”

The boy learns the identity of his father; simultaneously, the President of the United States of America delivers a global address. He tells the world that “all of our combined modern technologies and imaginations—even the wars that we’ve fought—have provided us the tools to wage this terrible battle.” Speaking to countries that the United States has bombed, economically disenfranchised, sabotaged, and colonized, the President says: wasn’t it all worth it, since you’re not going to die from the impact of a huge fucking asteroid?

That country’s not an international aggressor, the President explains. That’s your daddy.

At the end of the film, America succeeds. Grace Stamper shares a tearful, oddly high-res farewell with her hero father, telling him that “everything good that I have inside of me, I have from you,” a statement that is backed up by zero evidence presented throughout the film. The asteroid gets blown up. Everyone is saved, except Paris. Sorry, Paris. All the nations of the world rejoice, because America the hero-Dad came through.

It’s all worth it, Armageddon tells us, as the credits roll over sepia-toned photos of Grace and A.J’s wedding-slash-astronaut-memorial. All those times your father shouted at you, manipulated your elections, disobeyed the restraining order, turned away your refugees, tried to shoot your boyfriend, bombed your civilians—it was all worth it, because he saved you. Be thankful for the dad you’ve got, the movie insists. He just might die a hero.

A final point of order: The animal cracker scene. There’s no getting around it. Why? Why does it exist? To convince us that Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck are engaging in heterosexual mating rituals, so we should root for their relationship? As a justification for an Aerosmith song? To make us feel ambivalent about whether we should let an asteroid deliver us into the sweet release of the abyss? Life is a rich tapestry of mysteries and horrors, and some things defy explanation. People wrote, storyboarded, lit, framed, costumed, directed, edited, and approved that scene, and they did it on purpose. All is chaos. No matter how many daddies we send into the void of space, we will never be delivered from this particular vector of suffering.

Hugo, Nebula, and Campbell award finalist Sarah Gailey is an internationally-published writer of fiction and nonfiction. Their work has recently appeared in Mashable, the Boston Globe, and Fireside Fiction. They are a regular contributor for Tor.com and Barnes & Noble. You can find links to their work here. They tweet @gaileyfrey. Their debut novella, River of Teeth, and its sequel Taste of Marrow, are available from Tor.com.

About the Author

Sarah Gailey

Author

Sarah Gailey is a Hugo Award Winning and Bestselling author of speculative fiction, short stories, and essays. They have been a finalist for the Hugo, Nebula, and Locus awards for multiple years running. Their work includes their bestselling adult novel debut, Magic For Liars (Tor Books, 2019), Just Like Home (Tor Books, 2022), and their original comic book series with BOOM! Studios, Know Your Station. Their shorter works and essays have been published in Mashable, The Boston Globe, Vice, Tor.com, and The Atlantic. Their work has been translated into several different languages and published around the world. You can find links to their work at sarahgailey.com. Photo ©Kate Dollarhyde 2023
Learn More About Sarah
Subscribe
Notify of
Avatar


45 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Avatar
6 years ago

Brilliant. Your analysis of the movie is at least three orders of magnitude better than the movie itself :D

Thanks!

Avatar
6 years ago

So the important question: in subjecting yourself to this, did you want to close your eyes?

Avatar
noonan
6 years ago

@2 only until I realized the article was a brilliant piece of satire.

sdzald
6 years ago

The asteroid threat justifies the existence of the American Military Industrial Complex the way nothing else ever could. “Thank goodness we have nuclear bombs,”

Come on now why are you calling out just America on this? It’s not like we have a monopoly on Bombs and Military Industrial Complex’s. :)

Ok I get it you really really hate this movie, and you are right to, it is simply awful on so many levels. However IMO no worse than the other asteroid is going to destroy the world movie, Deep Impact, that came out at about the same time.

Avatar
6 years ago

Now I want to write a picture book adaptation called Grace Has Seven Daddies.

wiredog
6 years ago

And then there’s “Space Cowboys”

Avatar
6 years ago

This is important work.

NomadUK
6 years ago

However IMO no worse than the other asteroid is going to destroy the world movie, Deep Impact, that came out at about the same time.

That may be your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but by any objective measure, Deep Impact is so much better than Armageddon as to make such a comparison ludicrous.

Now, Meteor — there was a serious stinker.

sdzald
6 years ago

@8 did you notice the IMO?  So mine differs from yours and that makes it ludicrous?  Ummm ok :)

Avatar
T Scott
6 years ago

I have never seen this movie.  I had no intention of ever seeing this movie.  Following your brilliantly insightful and somewhat disturbing currently-appropriate analysis, I question why this movie was ever made.   However, I did click through to the animal cracker scene (for research, only).  I was to meet my friend for lunch at nearby French bakery, but now I am slightly nauseous.  Sorry, Paris.

Avatar
Thrasherlisk
6 years ago

@3 if only

Avatar
Marshall Ryan Maresca
6 years ago

by any objective measure, Deep Impact is so much better than Armageddon

Deep Impact is probably the objectively better film, but if both movies are on at the same time on competing channels, I know I’m turning on Armageddon.

Avatar
6 years ago

Forget the animal crackers, what I want to know is why would Affleck’s character be driving a BMW Z3?  That seems completely out of character.

Tessuna
6 years ago

Maybe something’s wrong with me, but I actually like this movie. Possible reasons: a) I saw it for the first time when I was 10. b) I never even considered taking any part of it seriously. Come on! It is clearly a parody of disaster movies (like Deep Impact) and if you see the irony, it is hilarious. c) My parents were getting divorced at the time, my dad moved away and I was sensitive to the father/daughter relationship theme. d) I love the soundtrack.

I haven’t seen it for years, but I bet I still remember all the funny bits and quotes. It made me laugh and it made me cry. I have seen worse movies.

Avatar
6 years ago

I pretty sure there is an Aerosmith song because Liv Tyler is in the movie. Being Grace would definitely suck being trapped alone on a oil rig drowning in testosterone is no way to have a life. I enjoy the explosions it’s the only reason to watch this movie.   

Avatar
rm
6 years ago

I remember two things from this film. (1) A shot where the space shuttle backs away from a space station, turns, and then moves forward just like a minivan full of Space Dads backing out of a driveway and heading down the road. (2) They break the asteroid into pieces, and all of those pieces hit Earth, thereby delivering exactly the same extinction-level impact that the whole asteroid would have had, yet somehow everything is saved. Oh, also, I remember one good line, something like “we’re all gonna have high schools  named after us.” Except, on reflection, thinking about Christa McCauliff, that’s a terrible line in bad taste. 

I agree with this analysis. It doesn’t redeem the time I spent watching a rented VHS of the movie, but it does add some sane perspective to an otherwise horrific memory. 

But I disagree with one thing. Literary snob types are not likely to say genre material isn’t worth analyzing — they are likely to be fans, and they think every text can be analyzed. There is a subset of fans who can’t stand to hear any thoughful analysis of their favorite thing.

shiftercat
6 years ago

Didn’t Deep Impact and Armageddon both use “somehow, none of the major observatories on Earth noticed this huge freaking meteor until the proverbial last minute” as a major plot point?

‘Cause it strikes me that if astrophysicists told the various governments of the world, “Hey, big rock headed this way, let’s figure out how to deal with it ahead of time,” there wouldn’t have been this, “Oh, isn’t it lucky we have these bombs?” bullshit.

(Correct me if I’m wrong; both films made me feel like my intelligence was actively being insulted within the first five minutes, so I didn’t bother watching beyond that.)

Avatar
Eduardo Jencarelli
6 years ago

Perfect analysis.

I’d also add another scene, worth remembering to this discussion. Specifically, the telescope scene where the middle-aged husband yells at his wife to get his GODDAMN PHONE BOOK!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzRYJGbtEjc

In any other film, the scene would be a less-than-subtle prelude to a fully loaded story about spousal abuse. In Armageddon, Bay doesn’t even blink twice before cutting away to the disaster set piece.

Avatar
6 years ago

 I think you saw a different movie than I did.

Avatar
Austin
6 years ago

@16 – That line was actually from Deep Impact.

Avatar
6 years ago

@17 — The last time I saw either of those movies was in the theater.  But if I remember correctly, in Deep Impact the impactor was a comet, not an asteroid, and it was detected well in advance, but President Morgan Freeman decided not to advertise it widely to try to stave off panic; and when they did launch the expedition to knock it off course, the flight time was several months if not more than a year.

Avatar
6 years ago

Don’t you just love that AJ has set up his own Oil Company a day after he was fired from the Rig.

“I’ve got four words for you…”

Avatar
6 years ago

My parents put this on a zillion times when I was a youth, so even though I can objectively tally the movie’s flaws, my nostalgia goggles are super thick and it retains a soft spot in my heart. Bruce Willis had his very own VHS stack on our action movie shelves.

That said, even my parents fast forwarded the animal cracker scene. XD

Avatar
Croaker
6 years ago

I’m afraid that it was not Rockhound that said “So the truth is, we all feel like a bunch of Daddies here” it was Michale Clark’s character Bear. You may want to watch that scene again.

Avatar
6 years ago

I’m not sure if I should confess I actually enjoyed watching this movie?  Mind – I’ve only seen it once.  But I recall having a lot of fun with it.

Avatar
rm
6 years ago

Austin @20 — Oh thank God. It’s somehow comforting to know that Armageddon has nothing good at all in it. 

Avatar
6 years ago

This movie is among the dumbest ever produced. The review hits many of the low points, but only brushes on a few of the ways it completely ignores anything related to real science and physics.

Avatar
6 years ago

Bruce Willis’s opening scene? There he was firing golf balls at a Greenpeace ship off of his ocean drilling rig and exchanging witty banter with them – you had to know it was going to be one of the all-time great comedies – also the amateur astronomer who wanted to claim naming rights on the meteor and his hilarious comments about his wife – comedy gold! Seriously now, this is one of my favourite movies of all time – and didn’t an unnamed Chinese city get a meteorite in its bay also? Or was that a different disaster movie? They all seem to blur together after a while.

Avatar
6 years ago

I have a friend who used to work on oil rigs and is a trained geologist. He said he was caught between laughing his a** off and impotent rage at the complete disregard for actual oil rig work.

Avatar
Keleborn Telperion
6 years ago

“You brought a gun into Space?”

It’s a COMEDY. Sheesh!

Avatar
taivins
6 years ago

Michael Clarke Duncan says the line “we all feel like a bunch of daddies here” (timestamp 1:42)

Avatar
6 years ago

I have a vague memory of reviews of this and Deep Impact at the time, something along the lines of, this film was the asteroid movie for guys, and DI was the asteroid movie for girls. How quaint. I never thought of it as representing the triumph of the military-industrial complex as much as it was supposed to depict the target audience of ‘regular joes’ getting called upon to save the world.

The movie that really had my eyes rolling when it comes to depicting America as the saviour of the world was Independence Day. Just watching lines delivered straight like the first lady saying to her husband, ‘just tell the truth, it’s what you’re good at’ and the nonsense of all the foreign military guys listening with amazement as the plan to strike back at the aliens is disseminated. Like, the very idea of fighting back would never have occurred to them if America hadn’t decided to do so first. Ugh, it hurt so bad to watch.

Avatar
Keleborn Telperion
6 years ago

@12/ Marshall Ryan Maresca,

Exactly.

Bruce Willis.

Liv Tyler.

He doesn’t want to pay any more Federal Income Taxes. Ever.

Hey guys, I’m better now. Guys?

And the DVD extras showing the Nuke blow up the Asteroid into tiny bits, which all then proceed to rain down upon the Earth, their orbital path having hardly been altered at all. Oops!

Well, OK, I still haven’t been able to locate those …

Avatar
6 years ago

The general idea behind the storyline of Armageddon is actually not that far fetched, though such a mission is unlikely to be manned.  

 
At Balticon a couple of weeks ago, I attended a science presentation on planetary defense. Turns out nukes are a real option. Indeed, if time is running out, nukes are the only option.

 
And there is no guarantee we will have a lot of time. Gravitational interactions, collisions, and random gas eruptions (on comets) make exact predictions of impactor orbits impossible even in theory.
 
One way to use a nuclear device would be to set it off right next to a prospective impactor, giving it a good hard shove in the desired direction, without breaking it up much.
 
If you can’t deflect an impactor in the time available, however, you may want to break it up. If the pieces are small enough, they will burn up in the atmosphere, resulting in nothing more than a spectacular meteor shower.
 
Indeed, if all you can do is break up a Chicxulub-sized slate-wiper into a whole slew of Tunguska-level events, that would still be enough to save the human race.
 
On the film itself, I am going to treat the description of Bruce Willis‘s character as an “abusive parent“, as tongue in cheek; though obviously his overprotectiveness is played for laughs. He gets single dad points for keeping his daughter with him instead of putting her in foster care.
 
The whole world watching an American team in space reminded me of the Moon landings.  However, the closest real world analog to the mission in the movie I can think of is when a Navy SEAL all-star team was sent in to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.

sdzald
6 years ago

@34 One way to use a nuclear device would be to set it off right next to a prospective impactor, giving it a good hard shove in the desired direction, without breaking it up much.

The problem with using a nuke to alter the course is that in space there is no atmosphere therefore there is little concuss’s force. The basic idea in both Deep Impact and Armageddon is to set them off inside the body, where it would either push the two parts away from each other, thus causing them to miss earth, or by breaking it up into enough small parts that they wouldn’t impact.the surface.  The current thinking is that the only real way to stop a strike is to force the object off course and that trying to destroy it would not work very well.  With current technology if we know enough in advance we have a chance, if we have little notice, we are screwed.

Avatar
Ian
6 years ago

I remember thinking, when this (and Deep Impact) came out, how they were almost guaranteed to mess up the physics. I never ended up seeing either one—although based on this review and the comments, it appears I didn’t miss much—but I can’t recall why we didn’t see either one or the other, since laughing at the ridiculous physics would have been a good break for astronomy grad students. Perhaps we were still reeling from having our sensibilities offended by Starship Troopers the year before.

@34/taras, @35/sdzald: While breaking apart a comet, glued together by volatile ices, might be a bit more feasible than doing the same for a rocky asteroid, the big problem with this option in either case is that not only must we muster enough energy to cause the breakup but also we must add enough initial energy to ensure that the pieces have enough momentum to overcome their mutual gravitation: a large rubble pile is only mildly less destructive than a solid object of the same mass. Spreading it out over the full cross-section of the Earth (or wider, ideally) could possibly reduce an extinction-level event to one that merely causes the extinction of every insurance and re-insurance firm on the planet.

I can’t find the link, but somewhere on this site I posted a comment (probably one of the Star Trek threads?) with some back-of-the-envelope calculations suggesting that a silly, but possibly not completely infeasible, number of Saturn V engines could provide enough thrust to push a Chicxulub-sized asteroid off an Earth-collision orbit if we could get them all up there and start the firing sequence many months in advance. Getting them all constructed and put in place in sufficient time would of course be the trick, though. Fortunately, recent surveys and analyses suggest our risk over the next couple of centuries is negligible, so we’ve got some time to get our governmental and industrial capabilities in order…

Avatar
6 years ago

@36/Ian,

Found your back-of-the-envelope calculation, Ian. It’s @97 on the Keith Candido Star Trek TOS rewatch, Season 3, The Paradise Syndrome.

sdzald
6 years ago

@36 even with the Saturn V’s you better hope the object is not rotating. 

The further away the object the less of a ‘course correction’ is needed to make it miss, thus the less force is needed. Even a relative light force might be enough to make it miss. Where as if its close, like say moon close, forget about it, no way we have the tech to force the mass and speed of a planet killer off course enough and breaking it up enough to make it harmless isn’t going to work either.  Say good night now.

Avatar
Ian
6 years ago

@39/sdzlad: Oh, hell to the yes! Ignoring rotation is like assuming spherical cows: necessary for a Fermi estimate on a dreary November night (thanks, @39/Keleborn!), but I promise that if the President calls for advice on averting planetary catastrophe, I’ll defer to the folks who actually stayed in astrophysics to make a career of it to go over the calculations in more detail. ;-) Although…depending upon the direction of the rotation vector, the torque mignt interact with a perpendicular acceleration in a way that would be helpful…but I think that might be a relatively minor complication in the face of figuring out how to construct 1 billion rocket engines and send them several AU across the solar system!

That leads to the truly fundamental flaw at the core of the story behind Armageddon and similar films (even beyond the usual inability of writers to properly deal with the scales of distance, time, and energy involve in astrophysics): there’s no way that any plausible method for dealing with this type of threat would involve a manned mission. Space Cowboys, okay maybe that required some human touch. But kilometer-scale chunks of rock and ice hurtling towards us at 30 km/s? Nope, a personal presence probably won’t add much value. It’s merely Rule of Drama that explains why we’re watching people instead of robots do the work.

Avatar
6 years ago

@35:  According to stories in BuzzFeed and Newsweek in March, NASA planetary protection experts have now accepted the nuclear option, after decades of resistance.

An atomic explosion puts out a fierce blast of photons and other particles.  On Earth, this heats the air, giving us the familiar mushroom cloud and concussive effect.  In space, the radiation would of course give any nearby asteroid a push (or solar sails wouldn’t work), but I think the main thrust would be from vaporizing the surface of the asteroid facing the explosion.  The effect would be like a trillion tiny rockets pushing the asteroid away from the blast.
 
@36: There is so little gravity holding together a rubble pile asteroid that, once blown apart, it would take millions of years to reassemble, if it ever did. 
 
This lack of cohesion is also why mounting rocket engines on it wouldn’t work; nor the more feasible alternative of simply crashing a fast-moving spacecraft into it.
 
@37: You have my sympathies.
 
@39:  If you have lots of time, you can use a “gravitational tractor”. This simply means you fly your spacecraft close to the asteroid and let your minuscule gravity tug the asteroid toward you. 
 
About Armageddon‘s sister film, Deep Impact: it’s always cracked me up that the President conceals the imminent disaster as long as possible, so people can’t use the time to get as far away from large bodies of water as possible, and then runs away leaving millions to die, and nobody’s in the least put out!

Avatar
Ian
6 years ago

@41/taras: The upcoming Hayabusa 2 and Osiris-REX missions will give us more information about the composition of asteroids, but missions to comets and asteroids thus far seem to indicate that while they may be porous and covered in regolith, they are still reasonably solid bodies in general. The nuclear option is still primarily about giving a sideways kick. As the behavior of the Philae lander showed, even kilometer-sized objects have non-negligible gravitation, meaning any any attempt to remove a threat by shattering an object better have enough energy to accelerate the bulk of its mass to escape velocity, which requires a lot more energy beyond that needed to break it into meter-scale pieces. (Another area where the awesome ‘splosions seen on the big screen understate the realities of the energies involved.) Sure, if you turn a 1-kilometer rock into a 10-kilometer sandbar, it might take millions of years to collapse down to a  solid rock again, but that won’t make much difference down here if the center of mass is still on a trajectory to slam into Chicago six months later; it is far preferable to ensure that trajectory is pushed over towards Tycho Crater or Utopia Planitia, thank you very much.

Avatar
Keleborn Telperion
6 years ago

How is that everyone is so eager to consider the Nuclear Option? Hasn’t anyone considered diplomacy?

(Insert image of Spock in mindmeld with Horta.)

What about the idea of nailing a Mylar (reflective) Parachute to it? Is that just more sf nonsense?

Avatar
Keleborn Telperion
6 years ago

@18/EduardoJencarelli,

About the Astronomer who yells at his wife to get the goddamn phone book – my own first reaction was also to be unhappy about that, particularly since I myself had considered becoming an Astronomer, and had gotten to know (in a casual sense) a few of them as an undergraduate, as well as some of the students, and they struck me as some of the most pleasant people in the world.

But during the brief moments when I found myself taking this movie seriously, I found something poignant about this: the species was facing its extinction, but the facts of life are that not all members of this species are pleasant people. Is the species really worth saving?

This conflict might be seen as metaphorically played out in the relationship between Liv Tyler and her dad Bruce Willis : why does she put up with him? Because even though he’s a bit of a d***, he’s still her dad. And him, for all his flaws, still manages to do the right thing in the end. So maybe this species is worth saving after all.

Kind of a lot to be reading into this movie, I know. But once I pay for my theater ticket, I try very hard to enjoy the time I’m spending there, and to create a positive experience for myself.

sporkyrat
6 years ago

Not a great movie.   Favorite line from it, though, was the Russian cosmonaut’s  ‘American components, Russian components, all made in Taiwan!’
My husband and I occasionally quote that line at each other when we have to perform percussive maintenance on something.  

Avatar
6 years ago

My impression is, the screenplays for movies like this start out relatively intelligent and well-researched, and then the filmmakers dumb it down for the mass audience.  

 For example, in the movie, 2012, I kept waiting for the President to order all ships to head for deep water (which is what you do when a tsunami is coming).   Instead, the filmmakers decided it would look cool to have an aircraft carrier momentarily suspended by a giant wave over Washington, D.C. 

As we’ve seen, Armageddon’s basic concept of using nuclear weapons to protect the Earth is entirely valid.  But then it’s given a populist gloss  by having the mission carried out by regular guys, not eggheads.