In terms of accuracy, "Armageddon" was far less accurate than "Deep Impact". The Star Trek series and movies are quite physics challenged, too, but even they aren't nearly as screwed up as "Armageddon".
One thing you most definitely have wrong about the "Star Trek" vision of the future is low energy consumption. The exact opposite is true - the "Star Trek" vision of the future requires production and control of almost unlimited energy. Look no further than the everyday use of transporters and replicators as a case in point. Converting 50 grams of matter (less than 2 ounces) to energy releases as much energy as a 1 megaton hydrogen bomb (1 million tons of TNT detonating instantly), so replicating a cup of coffee would use more energy than was released by the Tunguska event, which flatted several hundred square kilometers of forest.
Space/Science » in reply to Re: Armageddon was a kick ass film
Armageddon sucked so bad it could've created its own black hole
The whole thread (25 posts)
- Enterprise: "breaking the ice"
- What was the point of the solar sail in the new Star Wars movie?
- The laws of physics don't apply to a Hollywood script