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

[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.

 

[BillTre]

Although the movie is about an asteroid impact, it is really about the climate change situation.

I doubt that anything like this would happened in this more physics like scenario. Its too easy for a lot of people to not understand it.
In climate change debates, a lot of what is shown in the movie do come up as justifications for various actions.

I see it as a backhanded to approach this kind of thinking.
Because of this, the detailed physics of the movie are not that important to me.

 

[Astronuc]

Do viruses ever cause extinction events?

No, not necessarily, but then look at the bubonic plague and the decimation of European and Central Asian populations, and perhaps elsewhere. Just looking at US history, I understand that there are small tribes of indigenous people who went extinct due to viruses and homicide. I believe Australia has a similar history.

Whatever if SARS-Cov-2 had been like Ebola?

 

[256bits]

All I can say is that Jennifer L should try to be less brooding in her acting style.
It's annoying.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

All I can say is that Jennifer L should try to be less brooding in her acting style.
It's annoying.

Seems to be working for her, @256bits. An Oscar, a BAFTA, an AACTA, a SATURN AWARD (surely that counts for something here on PF!) plus a slew of nominations and EDAs suggests her brooding style is appreciated by others.

 

[BillTre]

Seems appropriate for the character's situation, to me.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

Whatever if SARS-Cov-2 had been like Ebola?

Do you think vaccine hesitancy would have been a thing if Covid made blood leak out your eyeballs, @Astronuc? I'd bet not!

But we're way off topic to an asteroid strike, I certainly didn't pick up the global warming nudge that @BillTre did, I thought it was more a poke at US partisan politics

 

[BillTre]

I certainly didn't pick up the global warming nudge that @BillTre did, I thought it was more a poke at US partisan politics

Yes. I would say it addresses both.
Climate and Politics, united forever.

 

[BillTre]

Just to further make my point, in this NY Times review, the director said:

What remains to be seen is whether the film fulfills a primary aim of its director, Adam McKay, who wants it to be, in his words, “a kick in the pants” that prompts urgent action on climate change.

“I’m under no illusions that one film will be the cure to the climate crisis,” Mr. McKay, whose previous films include “The Big Short” and “Vice,” wrote in an email to the Times. “But if it inspires conversation, critical thinking, and makes people less tolerant of inaction from their leaders, then I’d say we accomplished our goal.”

 

[hutchphd]

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.

Perhaps to help wash off the residue from the unfortunate film in question, I recommend this discussion from a movie that actually was classic satire: