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

In summary, an asteroid is headed towards Earth and the makers of the movie have seen Idiocracy. Most people are in denial and don't seem to care. There is a chance that the movie is accurate, although it's highly unlikely.
  • #1
Jarvis323
1,243
986
Is this how people would react to a looming world ending asteroid impact?

 
  • Like
Likes BWV
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Jarvis323 said:
Is this how people would react to a looming world ending asteroid impact?
No. Do you seriously think it IS ?
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #3
Looks legit.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes phinds
  • #4
Jeez, phinds. Lighten up. It's a satire on current events.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, Lren Zvsm, pinball1970 and 2 others
  • #5
phinds said:
No. Do you seriously think it IS ?
Intuitively no, but based on observation, sort of.
 
  • Like
Likes Filip Larsen
  • #6
Based on the trailer, the makers of the movie has seen Idiocracy, right?
'Realistic' goes quite far. Let's say 'has a point' instead o0)
 
  • Like
Likes Lren Zvsm
  • #7
Rive said:
Based on the trailer, the makers of the movie has seen Idiocracy, right?
Now THAT makes sense.
 
  • Like
Likes Lren Zvsm
  • #8
Jarvis323 said:
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!
 
  • Like
Likes Lren Zvsm and russ_watters
  • #9
Most realistic? Could be.
 
  • #10
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Lren Zvsm, pinball1970 and jbriggs444
  • #11
Jarvis323 said:
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?
 
  • #12
Melbourne Guy said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Keith_McClary
  • #13
Jarvis323 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and BillTre
  • #15
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.

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
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and russ_watters
  • #16
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #17
Melbourne Guy said:
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.
 
  • #18
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.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #19
pinball1970 said:
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:wink:) - moot. Give the asteroid a little nudge, far enough away, and that's sufficient to avoid a dinosaur killer situation here on Earth.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #20
Melbourne Guy said:
The kinetic energy involved makes any explosives - unless it's nuclear (or antimatter, we're in the sci fi forum, aren't we:wink:) - 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.
 
  • Haha
Likes pinball1970
  • #21
Melbourne Guy said:
unless it's nuclear
Kind of reassuring that according to the delivered mass a nuclear option seems possible.
 
  • #22
Jarvis323 said:
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...
 
  • #23
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.
 
  • #24
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and russ_watters
  • #25
gleem said:
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...
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and Bystander
  • #26
Melbourne Guy said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc, BillTre and hutchphd
  • #27
hutchphd said:
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.

hutchphd said:
I thought it abysmal.
I think you over analyzed it. It was not intended to be a work of art.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and hutchphd
  • #28
Janus said:
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.
 
  • #30
hutchphd said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc
  • #31
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 :sorry: . It is of course their decision as well.
I believe I will now do something really cerebral like watch me some college football...
 
  • Haha
Likes Astronuc
  • #32
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..)
 
  • #33
Janus said:
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.
 
  • #34
hutchphd said:
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. :cool:

[edit: Read that "Don't Look Up" is intended as an allegory for global climate change. Perhaps I'll give it another look.]
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Likes hutchphd
  • #35
hutchphd said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and hutchphd
<h2>1. What makes this asteroid impact/end of the world movie more realistic than others?</h2><p>This movie is based on extensive research and input from experts in the fields of astronomy, geology, and physics. The special effects and depictions of the asteroid impact are also based on realistic simulations and data.</p><h2>2. Will this movie accurately portray the effects of an asteroid impact on Earth?</h2><p>Yes, the movie will showcase the potential devastation and global impact of an asteroid impact, including the destruction of cities, tsunamis, and changes in the Earth's climate.</p><h2>3. How does this movie differ from other disaster movies?</h2><p>Unlike other disaster movies, this movie focuses on the science behind an asteroid impact and the efforts of scientists and government officials to prevent or mitigate the impact. It also highlights the potential for international collaboration in the face of a global disaster.</p><h2>4. Is there a message or lesson in this movie about preparing for a potential asteroid impact?</h2><p>Yes, this movie serves as a reminder of the importance of being prepared for natural disasters and the potential consequences of not taking action. It also highlights the need for continued research and monitoring of potentially hazardous asteroids.</p><h2>5. Does this movie accurately depict the capabilities of current technology to prevent an asteroid impact?</h2><p>While some aspects of the movie may be exaggerated for dramatic effect, the overall depiction of technology and efforts to prevent an asteroid impact is based on current scientific understanding and potential capabilities. However, it is important to note that the technology and methods used in the movie may not necessarily be the exact ones used in real life situations.</p>

1. What makes this asteroid impact/end of the world movie more realistic than others?

This movie is based on extensive research and input from experts in the fields of astronomy, geology, and physics. The special effects and depictions of the asteroid impact are also based on realistic simulations and data.

2. Will this movie accurately portray the effects of an asteroid impact on Earth?

Yes, the movie will showcase the potential devastation and global impact of an asteroid impact, including the destruction of cities, tsunamis, and changes in the Earth's climate.

3. How does this movie differ from other disaster movies?

Unlike other disaster movies, this movie focuses on the science behind an asteroid impact and the efforts of scientists and government officials to prevent or mitigate the impact. It also highlights the potential for international collaboration in the face of a global disaster.

4. Is there a message or lesson in this movie about preparing for a potential asteroid impact?

Yes, this movie serves as a reminder of the importance of being prepared for natural disasters and the potential consequences of not taking action. It also highlights the need for continued research and monitoring of potentially hazardous asteroids.

5. Does this movie accurately depict the capabilities of current technology to prevent an asteroid impact?

While some aspects of the movie may be exaggerated for dramatic effect, the overall depiction of technology and efforts to prevent an asteroid impact is based on current scientific understanding and potential capabilities. However, it is important to note that the technology and methods used in the movie may not necessarily be the exact ones used in real life situations.

Similar threads

Tesla": A Movie Review of the Unusual
    • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
2
Views
2K
I An asteroid the size of the Rose Bowl has a slight chance of impacting Earth?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
14
Views
1K
NASA's DART spaceship has hit the Dimorphos asteroid: what now?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Stargazing On asteroids and impact events
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Number of known asteroids reaches 1 million
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
4K
Hiawatha impact crater in Greenland, formed ~58 million years ago
    • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
1K
Asteroid collision prevention
    • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
2
Views
2K
Is the New Meg Movie Scientifically Accurate?
    • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
2
Views
1K
Fooey, 'Underwater' is not the movie I hoped it might be....
    • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
2
Views
1K
Impact events: when were they first seen as potentially catastrophic?
    • Earth Sciences
Replies
20
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top