Most realistic asteroid impact/end of the world movie yet?

[Jarvis323]

Is this how people would react to a looming world ending asteroid impact?

 

[phinds]

Is this how people would react to a looming world ending asteroid impact?

No. Do you seriously think it IS ?

 

[Bandersnatch]

Looks legit.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Jeez, phinds. Lighten up. It's a satire on current events.

 

[Jarvis323]

No. Do you seriously think it IS ?

Intuitively no, but based on observation, sort of.

 

[Rive]

Based on the trailer, the makers of the movie has seen Idiocracy, right?
'Realistic' goes quite far. Let's say 'has a point' instead

 

[phinds]

Based on the trailer, the makers of the movie has seen Idiocracy, right?

Now THAT makes sense.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

Is this how people would react to a looming world ending asteroid impact?

It's hard to know which of the cast you're referring to, @Jarvis323, but in Neflix's Ironic Cinematic Universe, I'd be surprised if any of them reacted any other way!

- Madam President with a perpetual smirk? Check!
- Egghead man astronomer who seems perpetually confused? Check!
- Political advisor perpetually swarmy? Check!
- Shrill female astronomer with perpetual wisecracks? Check!

It's all there, locked and loaded, can't wait for December. Not!

 

[Hornbein]

Most realistic? Could be.

 

[Jarvis323]

In honesty, it's the denial part that is most realistic to me. People naively assume people would go crazy running around fighting, or become depressed, lose faith in their religions, have a profound moment, do the things they didn't get a chance to do before the end, become interested in possible solutions, etc. In reallity, maybe most people just make a joke of it, ignore it, try to profit off of it, or miss the news completely because they don't pay attention to what's going on in the world.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

In honesty, it's the denial part that is most realistic to me.

There's a whole galaxy's of PhDs in your observation, @Jarvis323. Or a book at least, as Shankar Vendantam has recently done as co-author of Useful Delusions: The Power and Paradox of the Self-Deceiving Brain. Most of us are in denial that we're going to die at some point, so why would an impending asteroid strike change that?

 

[Hornbein]

There's a whole galaxy's of PhDs in your observation, @Jarvis323. Or a book at least, as Shankar Vendantam has recently done as co-author of Useful Delusions: The Power and Paradox of the Self-Deceiving Brain. Most of us are in denial that we're going to die at some point, so why would an impending asteroid strike change that?

For a number of years I have believed that society is based on lies. Looks like Shankar feels the same. Though George Carlin said it first, in his rather more earthy style.

 

[pinball1970]

Is this how people would react to a looming world ending asteroid impact?

This is not a film and you do not actually see an impact but I think this is really well put together.

There are enough planet /earth guys and physics people to tell me

1.No way we could know that

2.There is a possibility/ it could have happened like that

3. We believe it did happen like that

3.Very unlikely it happened like thatThere are a couple of assumptions in there like what time it hit, judging by the sounds / light it hit early AM northern hemisphere, I am not sure it matters.

What I did like?

1.Different perspectives/ views

2. Pieces of info as time progresses but see points above

3. The music! Wow, it is just sinister as hell and punctuated by different views but still very effective.

Extinction event films have to have the hero, back story soap opera and I get it, it is entertainment after all.

I would like a little more sinister and little less Aerosmith.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll probably watch this movie because of the cast, but I'm not sure I'll be into the style of humor.

Anyway, there was a pretty realistic one in 1998 called Armageddon Deep Impact.

 

[pinball1970]

I'll probably watch this movie because of the cast, but I'm not sure I'll be into the style of humor.

Anyway, there was a pretty realistic one in 1998 called Armageddon Deep Impact.

I saw the trailer and I am intrigued so I will watch it.
I liked both films.
As an aside BBC news this morning reported the NASA is launching a mission tomorrow to redirect an asteroid. Just incase we need it for such an event. Impact next September.
https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense/dart

 

[Melbourne Guy]

NASA is launching a mission tomorrow to redirect an asteroid

It should be an interesting test case, I heard a podcast interview with one of the DART team on Quirks and Quarks, how they intend to measure the result is interesting. Here's hoping they don't miss, it's a tiny target!

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/nov...-to-test-a-planetary-defence-system-1.6254088

 

[pinball1970]

It should be an interesting test case, I heard a podcast interview with one of the DART team on Quirks and Quarks, how they intend to measure the result is interesting. Here's hoping they don't miss, it's a tiny target!

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/nov...-to-test-a-planetary-defence-system-1.6254088

So if a film was going to accurate they would be looking at something like this which is more in line with Deep Impact rather Armageddon.
The rocket does not have explosives on board, would that not be better?
If it missed it could detonate and the blast could cause a slight change in direction that way?

Either way I do not think that would make for a hugely interesting film, unless it missed and the asteroid hit which is close to Deep impact plot.
I like De Caprio and the film (Dont look up) looks interesting, satirical but I don’t want to spoil it for myself, I like to watch films knowing little about them.

 

[Jarvis323]

Deep impact was dissapointing to me in how it ended. Not that I wanted to see the world end. It's just that it turned out that all you needed to do to survive is go to high ground. There should have been a coordinated effort to save people on Earth.

I think with these kinds of stories we like to see a portrayal of how the world reacts to a hopeless doomsday scenareo, but then in the end we don't want the doomsday to actually happen. This is one unrealistic aspect. And it makes the scientist who just stood in front of the wave seem stupid.

I wonder if "Don't look up", will also be like this. If in the end the world is saved, then it changes comlletely how you interpret the characters.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

The rocket does not have explosives on board, would that not be better?

The kinetic energy involved makes any explosives - unless it's nuclear (or antimatter, we're in the sci fi forum, aren't we) - moot. Give the asteroid a little nudge, far enough away, and that's sufficient to avoid a dinosaur killer situation here on Earth.

 

[Jarvis323]

The kinetic energy involved makes any explosives - unless it's nuclear (or antimatter, we're in the sci fi forum, aren't we) - moot. Give the asteroid a little nudge, far enough away, and that's sufficient to avoid a dinosaur killer situation here on Earth.

With our luck, we might accidentally knock an asteroid, that wasn't going to hit us, onto a collision course.

 

[Rive]

unless it's nuclear

Kind of reassuring that according to the delivered mass a nuclear option seems possible.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

With our luck, we might accidentally knock an asteroid, that wasn't going to hit us, onto a collision course.

If it wasn't going to his us, ideally, we wouldn't be impacting it in the first place! But I used to naively think that if we smashed one into parts, that would be okay. Turns out, probs not, not unless the parts are all guaranteed to be small enough to burn up in the atmosphere. And that's not likely...

 

[Bandersnatch]

This was somewhat surprisingly nice and heartfelt.
Full disclosure: I watched it in an altered state of sobriety, half asleep, and with low expectations coming in. So it might in fact be more self-congratulatory and indulgent than I remember.
Best I can describe the vibe is Iron Sky crossed with Last Night.

 

[gleem]

I was quite sober when I watched it and it was interesting to see the prognostication based on the trailer. The over concern of the government and citizens with imminent personal and political problems in view of an impending disaster is quite real. The initial lack of credibility of the scientists or the incredulity of the citizenry is also quire believable considering previous warning of impending disaster that did not occur (over population, rampant pollution) and those that have not persuasively revelated themselves (climate change), as well as the cost of mobilizing and effort to address the issues provides an excuse for people to not act in a timely manner.

I think the characters were well portrayed and an important character was not revealed in the trailer that I saw. There is a twist in the plot that you do not see coming which I think was great. However, it did suffer from an Armageddon style solution to address the problem and takes an ending from another sci-fi movie. Enough said. Watch it.

 

[hutchphd]

I think the characters were well portrayed and an important character was not revealed in the trailer that I saw. There is a twist in the plot that you do not see coming which I think was great. However, it did suffer from an Armageddon style solution to address the problem and takes an ending from another sci-fi movie. Enough said. Watch it.

Watched the movie yesterday. I thought it abysmal.

The characters were not interesting. Meryl Streep played a caricature badly (Meryl Streep-!). The humor was very very broad but unfortunately infinitesimally deep. It tried very hard to be theater of the absurd, and the effort showed.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery. One of my all time favorite movies is Dr Strangelove. The "Don't Look Up" attempt at flattery succeeds except for the script, the direction, thr production values, and the lack of Peter Sellers (and Peter Sellers and Peter Sellers) and George C Scott .

I'm going to go watch Sim Pickens ride the bomb...

 

[Janus]

If it wasn't going to his us, ideally, we wouldn't be impacting it in the first place! But I used to naively think that if we smashed one into parts, that would be okay. Turns out, probs not, not unless the parts are all guaranteed to be small enough to burn up in the atmosphere. And that's not likely...

The problem is that with a newly discovered object you, at most, can predict its trajectory within a margin of error. So instead of a "path", you get something more like a "cone". The longer you observe it, the narrower the cone becomes. So the best you can do is calculate the probability of an impact. If, as time goes on, the Earth remains in that cone, the probability of impact increases. The only way to be sure of a miss is to deflect it enough to make sure that the Earth is outside of the cone entirely.
As far as the pieces of the object burning up in the atmosphere goes: If the original object is large enough to cause global disaster in the first place, having it "burn up" doesn't mean we avoid any consequences. The Earth's atmosphere still has to absorb all the kinetic energy of the object, All that energy being pumped into the atmosphere is likely to result in a good deal of damage to the global ecology.

 

[gleem]

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery. One of my all time favorite movies is Dr Strangelove. The "Don't Look Up" attempt at flattery succeeds except for the script, the direction, thr production values, and the lack of Peter Sellers (and Peter Sellers and Peter Sellers) and George C Scott .

Yeah. Dr Strangelove came to mind for me too. But really, "Don't Look Up" wasn't that bad. Rotten Tomato: critics 55%, audience 77%. and considering its political undertone it probably not bad since a percentage of the people might have been offended by the humor.

I thought it abysmal.

I think you over analyzed it. It was not intended to be a work of art.

 

[gleem]

he problem is that with a newly discovered object you, at most, can predict its trajectory within a margin of error. So instead of a "path", you get something more like a "cone". The longer you observe it, the narrower the cone becomes. So the best you can do is calculate the probability of an impact. If, as time goes on, the Earth remains in that cone, the probability of impact increases. The only way to be sure of a miss is to deflect it enough to make sure that the Earth is outside of the cone entirely.
As far as the pieces of the object burning up in the atmosphere goes: If the original object is large enough to cause global disaster in the first place, having it "burn up" doesn't mean we avoid any consequences. The Earth's atmosphere still has to absorb all the kinetic energy of the object, All that energy being pumped into the atmosphere is likely to result in a good deal of damage to the global ecology.

The first thing to notice is the prediction of a collision of an orbital trajectory for a body 6 month by a hand calculation. A typical layperson will not see a problem with this.

The alternative plan for dealing with this NEO did expect collateral damage, but it would make some people very rich.

 

[hutchphd]

I think you over analyzed it. It was not intended to be a work of art.

I think is was intended as an important piece of satire. I offer this review which matches mine pretty well:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/...9ltm1AqoykIcWyepwZMDB55eafOgO8M-ADRl2_jr3cphQ

Hopefully it will save some victims. Just "Don't Look At"

'

 

[gleem]

I think is was intended as an important piece of satire. I offer this review which matches mine pretty well:

When Siskel and Ebert had their show, which I often watched, they did not always agree. Sometimes I could not fully appreciate a "thumbs down" or even a "thumbs up". I also watch CBS regularly which has David Edelstein as a movie critic who is IMO is overly erudite and ponderous in his critiques to be virtually meaningless to me in the sense of being irrelevant. We don't all see things in the same light.

 

[hutchphd]

It is your opinion and I do not begrudge you that pleasure, and know you are not alone.
I was hoping only to give other potential viewers an added argument to not waste 90 minutes of their life . It is of course their decision as well.
I believe I will now do something really cerebral like watch me some college football...

 

[hutchphd]

Speaking of deep impact scenarios: It is my understanding that a major part of the mayhem from such an asteroid is the "broiler effect" from having the ejecta re-entering and further heating on descent. Apparently there is sufficient radiant flux possibly to be lethal over a large area . Is this possibility still considered likely? Somehow this is far more terrifying (I don't know why..)

 

[Melbourne Guy]

So instead of a "path", you get something more like a "cone". The longer you observe it, the narrower the cone becomes.

True, @Janus, and I did not describe my thinking very well because any explosive force we can apply that is sufficient to 'blow up' even a small asteroid such that the cone is widely dispersed enough to essentially miss the Earth is science fiction at the moment and for the foreseeable future.

So, yes, whether the asteroid intersects the Earth in one piece for many pieces is immaterial as far as the outcome in terms of energy dropped on us.

DART may demonstrate a viable 'hit it and hope it misses' method for further out asteroids, but whether it would help with an extinction event impactor is questionable.

 

[Klystron]

Watched the movie yesterday. I thought it abysmal

I have started to watch the movie twice. Could not get off the ground. Third attempt the charm?

The same thing happened attempting to watch the oh so serious NetFlix flick "The Power of the Dog". Good cast and acting, beautiful scenery, high expectations; yet, I needed three tries to finally watch the entire movie. Not science fiction (I think); so, will reserve my opinion of "Dog".

Having only watched the beginning, "Don't Look Up" reminds me a bit of "Contact" with a comet substituting for the incoming radio signal. If Jennifer Lawrence's character sleeps with a defrocked priest in the third reel, this justifies the comparison.

[edit: Read that "Don't Look Up" is intended as an allegory for global climate change. Perhaps I'll give it another look.]

 

[BillTre]

Speaking of deep impact scenarios: It is my understanding that a major part of the mayhem from such an asteroid is the "broiler effect" from having the ejecta re-entering and further heating on descent. Apparently there is sufficient radiant flux possibly to be lethal over a large area . Is this possibility still considered likely? Somehow this is far more terrifying (I don't know why..)

This seems to be the current interpretation of the after effects of the Chixculub impact that killed off all the dinosaurs, burned most or all trees, and destroyed the environment such that no vertebrate over 60 pounds long survived.
As I read it, the heat of numerous small particles heated by re-entering the atmosphere radiated heat over the entire globe.
At least the water didn't boil off.

 

[valenumr]

It should be clear by now that the most likely extinction event will be a virus. I know that's not really on point, but the 2011 movie "contagion" is scarily accurate.

 

[valenumr]

I have started to watch the movie twice. Could not get off the ground. Third attempt the charm?

The same thing happened attempting to watch the oh so serious NetFlix flick "The Power of the Dog". Good cast and acting, beautiful scenery, high expectations; yet, I needed three tries to finally watch the entire movie. Not science fiction (I think); so, will reserve my opinion of "Dog".

Having only watched the beginning, "Don't Look Up" reminds me a bit of "Contact" with a comet substituting for the incoming radio signal. If Jennifer Lawrence's character sleeps with a defrocked priest in the third reel, this justifies the comparison.

[edit: Read that "Don't Look Up" is intended as an allegory for global climate change. Perhaps I'll give it another look.]

I found it a reasonably entertaining movie, but you have to take it for what it is: a satire. Don't get caught up on the "sci-fi" mindset.

Anyhow, some view it as a commentary on the current Covid pandemic as well. I see it as a good illustration of the current state of science denial in general though.

 

[Jarvis323]

The movie is tricky to review, because one thing the movie does is point out the shallowness of movie critics and movie goers who only care about being constantly entertained. This might actually explain some of the divergence between professional film critics and the audience. The critics (even though that group is biased towards the political leanings of the film even more than the audience) were probably insulted.

In general, the movie seems to be criticizing the modern era of a dopamine addicted population strung out on reality TV, smart phones, political drama, social media, etc.

And it's hard to also critique the movie in terms of it's value as something other than a popcorn flick, because it's just depicting us how we are (at least trying to), and then of course you could interpret it as something profound, because it's showing real-like behavior and social dynamics, which ultimately comes down to how the brain works and the results of highly complex social systems.

It's also hard to determine how people in general will see the movie. Arguable, the movie doesn't include any new insight or anything like that, it just (somewhat clumsily) tries to depict the way things are. But people have the real world to look at for that. And people have tuned their looking glasses to filter reality a particular way already. So why would they see the ridiculous things in the film any differently than the ridiculous things in the world if they don't already realize they are ridiculous?

The aspects to the movie which cave to lending it as a popcorn flick are the funny and somewhat likable characters. All of the characters who are at fault in the plot are played by charming people, who are depicted as foolish and shallow, but with good intentions. Even the idea of capturing the comet is motivated by altruistic intentions (even though through outlandish and disillusion wishful thinking). Real life isn't like that so much, and the extent to which it is like that is debatable, because our society has normalized lying about those kind of motivations as a means of persuasion.

The choice of a clueless, scandal immersed female president, played by charismatic Meryl Streep, who is supposed to in part represent a certain previous US president, is questionable and seems arguably a bit sexist, or at least in bad taste IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

It should be clear by now that the most likely extinction event will be a virus. I know that's not really on point, but the 2011 movie "contagion" is scarily accurate.

Do viruses ever cause extinction events?

 

[russ_watters]

I found it a reasonably entertaining movie, but you have to take it for what it is: a satire. Don't get caught up on the "sci-fi" mindset.

Anyhow, some view it as a commentary on the current Covid pandemic as well. I see it as a good illustration of the current state of science denial in general though.

I liked it too. Not awesome, but pretty good. I liked the commentary, though the anti-corporatism angle doesn't really work. To me the (minus the end) it works better as a Covid allegory.

I really hated Armageddon, though. I thought it was just too absurd.

 

[valenumr]

Do viruses ever cause extinction events?

I don't think so. Honestly, I was being hyperbolic. However, I think "the stand" was a pretty good book on the subject. Do we prefer a slow death, or a quick one?

 

[hutchphd]

The movie "Idiocracy" was far funnier, more prescient, and not so relentlessly pretentious. To each his/her own.

 

[pinball1970]

Do viruses ever cause extinction events?

Intuitively? For me no. Knowing what we know about genetic variation.
HIV springs to mind, no prevention, no cure in the 80s yet African female prostitutes, very obvious risks and some did not contract it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC199193/we also survived other plagues in our history.
No, it won't be virus I don't think.

 

[hutchphd]

Do viruses ever cause extinction events?

I believe there were native American tribes who were effectively wiped out by smallpox (some aided by General Gage). OK that is different.
Seems like this would be difficult to show.. I think some of theories as to the disappearance of Neanderthals involve selectve sensitivity to pathogens and so we won the Darwin war.

/

 

[pinball1970]

I believe there were native American tribes who were effectively wiped out by smallpox (some aided by General Gage). OK that is different.
Seems like this would be difficult to show.. I think some of theories as to the disappearance of Neanderthals involve selectve sensitivity to pathogens and so we won the Darwin war.

/

Yaws one of the first? Europe to Africa and South America? The links I have looked at contradict what I have read about Syphilis.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

I finally got around to watching Don't Look Up, @Jarvis323...or most of it, at least, it's a LONG movie and not executed well enough to keep me interested for the whole 138 minutes because after only half of that it felt like hours had passed.

Anyway, good premise, should have been shorter, tighter, and done by the Brits. They excel at satire, this was too full of its own importance to truly rise above the hamfisted acting (OMG, Meryl, did you even read the script before signing on?) but not sly enough to poke fun at itself so we were in on the joke. DiCaprio was excellent, but that's expected (though his accent seemed to morph into Owen Wilson as the movie progressed) and Jennifer Lawrence played her part well, though it was a shame the female lead was set up as the shrieky voice of surprise.

Everyone's enjoyment varies, of course, but I can see why it was panned, and I can also see why many enjoyed it, as it skirts the threshold of well done.

 

[scottdave]

Who knows? I don't know of a movie writer who would have predicted hoarding toilet paper during a pandemic.

 

[scottdave]

Looks legit.

Sure who knows. Hoarding toilet paper was something that I don't remember most disease movies covering.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

Who knows? I don't know of a movie writer who would have predicted hoarding toilet paper during a pandemic.

Probably not, though there are a few 'lock down' movies that might include that, @scottdave, I've just not seen them. One is Cooped Up, by Kane Guglielmi, that was released in 2016. And Iuli Gerbase’s film, The Pink Cloud, may as well, that was shot just before the pandemic and is only being released now.

But the genesis for toilet paper to be missing from our shelves is surely there in the 'Crimson Contagion' preparedness and response exercise. The key findings report notes supply chain shortages will occur. It also notes that various US government agencies were poorly equipped to respond. They were not considering a society killing meteor strike, though, there's not much 'preparedness' we can do against that, outside of a much higher-tech DART mission!

 

[Astronuc]

I'll probably watch this movie because of the cast, but I'm not sure I'll be into the style of humor.

I ended up watching it, but in parts, since I really didn't like the humor and characters' behavior.

I understand it is satirical, but I don't particularly care for characters that lose it, even though it's fiction.

In terms of reality, it does address a realistic scenario, that of an asteroid impact on earth, and I remember discussion about 40 years ago concerning using SDI technology, both ground-based and space-based systems, e.g., shooting high powered lasers (or particle beams) either from the ground or from space, and there were questions about not only the feasibility, but the impacts (what if an aircraft or spacecraft inadvertently flies through the beam) or how does one generate the energy (and how many lasers), . . . Also, in the discussion was the use of thermonuclear systems and how they might be delivered (with various scenarios). There some looking for justification for a nuclear rocket propulsion program.

Forty (40) years ago, we recognized we weren't prepared. Forty years later, we're not much more prepared, and most folks aren't even aware of how unprepared, although, at least, some folks are looking out in hopes of being able to warn the global population.

The film also addresses how the general public, scientists/technologists, and political leadership might react/behave in the face of such a dramatic situation, however, that is seemingly mostly speculative. On the other hand, I've witnessed some nonsense at high levels, and in one case walked out of meeting at a NASA facility because the discussion got too stupid for my taste.

I also remember discussion about the survivability of the nation in the event of some catastrophic event such as a nuclear war or asteroid strike. Essentially, most of the population is expected to perish, and only small fraction would survive in certain locations. The policy at the time (and maybe still does) was that 'survival of the US' means the majority of political leadership (President, VP, cabinet members, congress persons, member of SCOTUS and courts) would somehow survive, and a somewhat functioning government remains intact. I personally found that rather appalling and very surreal.

We can look at how governments and public responded to the current pandemic, and somewhat assess (speculatively) how the same people might respond to an asteroid or comet on a collision course with earth. Certainly, there would be those in denial, other panicked, others who would work for a solution, and basically a spectrum of responses and behaviors.

There is certainly technically wrong in the first attempt of the deflection mission, and that was a bit over the top. On the other hand, we've seen spacecraft , both manned and unmanned go terribly wrong. Nevertheless, I would hope that a political leadership would not compromise the safety and security of humanity in order to attempt to make a profit from a very risky situation. The lesson: we should carefully select such leadership.