Mike Brotherton at Saturday U: Science in the Movies

[MrCure4]

major in college, but once in a while I do check into what's going on with astronomy and some new found theories in the world of it. But not everybody has to be interested in science, and that is perfectly okay. People have the right to look into whatever they want to, and just becuase we accept what we see on screen says nothing about where we're going, it just means we can call a tree for being a tree.

[MrCure4]

Release. Every movie has its share of goals to accomplish, Armageddon was just trying to give people a popcorn flick for a hot summer day, 2001 was made for the sake of art and a commentary on where we were going. The human mind can appreciate both films for what they are and what they set out to do. Just becuase somebody accepts a silly popcorn movie for its inaccuracies isn't a bad thing, it just means they are able to differentiate a movie from reality. I'm not a scientist, nor is science my

[MrCure4]

It's an interesting lecture, but I'm afraid the speaker Mr. Brotherton comes off biased and misguided. Armageddon isn't a science fiction its a western in space. The characters are modern representations of Western archetypes being called in to dispose of a threat such as this in a dirty dozen kind of fashioned. The movie never intended to be scientifically accurate, and this the filmmakers knew and admitted, Bay even said none of it was accurate in the audio commentary for the film's Criterion