russ_watters said:
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.
. It is of course their decision as well. 
