Talk:Deep Impact (film)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Improvement drive
Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement in the "Trivia" section that "In reality, any comet or asteroid would go across the sky thousands of times the speed of sound, and due to the friction of the comet entering Earth's atmosphere, it would blind anyone trying to view it" is way off base.

The earth moves through space at about 65,000 mph. Let's say the comet hit head on, going at the same speed in the opposite direction. The combined relative velocity would be 130,000 mph, which is well under 200 times the speed of sound. And that comet would be headed straight down. The comet in the movie is seen going from west to east and arrives late in the afternoon local time, so its path is almost perpendicular to the earth's. Its apparent velocity would be somewhere around 70,000 mph -- less than 100 times the speed of sound. Additionally, atmospheric friction would slow the comet considerably before impact. If the comet was high in the stratosphere when it passed over the characters in the movie, it could seem to move at about the speed depicted. There is a home movie of a very large bollide streaking across the sky above the Grand Tetons (in daylight!), and it moves at about the same apparent speed.

I don't know whether the comet would really be blinding, either. But in light of the errors I noted above, the source of the statement isn't very credible.

I deleted the trivia factoid about impact velocity because it was factually incorrect in addition to being unattributed. I also deleted the unattributed factoid about the comet appearing white despite being a dark object. While the albedo (reflectivity) of comets can be low, objects of any reflectivity in space appear bright, because they are seen against a totally black background with no source for comparison. The Earth's moon has a relatively low albedo (around 13%) but it appears "white" to our eyes. Objects in space do not appear gray unless they can be directly compared with something either more or less reflective. Joseph N Hall 04:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

minor POV
In the paragraph that compares Deep Impact with Armageddon, there appears the statement that "Deep Impact's story is generally considered to be more serious than Armageddon," which I believe to be "weasel-worded" (and this despite the fact that I actually liked ''Deep Impact better). 69.140.164.142 08:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Prior to its release, there was considerable buzz that Deep Impact would be more realistic and scientifically accurate than Armageddon. Deep Impact didn't really fulfill that expectation. While it may be true in the most basic and literate sense that Deep Impact is a more serious depiction, both movies are pretty close to nonsense. It's just that Armageddon is closer. Joseph N Hall 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The plot synopsis at present is inaccurate as it is a confused mixture of the plot of the two movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.184.210 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

scientific accuracy
In a post to alt.fan.cecil-adams (Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:26:08 -0600, Message-ID: <5dlg8pF35f2m4U2@mid.individual.net>) it has been reported that:

"There was an editorial in SciAm. Deep Impact hired an editor of Scientific American to advise them on the science.  He said that the only point where they ignored his advice on the science was the colour of the comet and its debris.  Science knows that these "snowballs" are blacker than Ed's coal, but the movie people said that wouldn't work for the visuals of an icy threat.  He accepted that, and had no other disagreements with them on the science."


 * This article does not outline exactly HOW this movie was more scientifically accurate than "Armageddon". Anybody care to add to that? 192.234.160.245 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Rps 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In many ways it's no more accurate than Armageddon, and doesn't even have Steve Buscemi to lend it some grace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.220.11 (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL are u kidding? all the physics of A, fumbling around on the asteroid, etc were laughable. DI is much easier to buy, factually than A was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"source material alterations" should be removed
The 'source material alterations' section makes it clear that The Hammer of God has absolutely nothing to do with Deep Impact and the novel wasn't even credited so it can't be considered source material at all. I'm removing that section.218.215.145.5 02:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Megatsunami??
A comet will not survive reentry to cause a nuclear type explosion. Instead, all the ice and other volitile materials will vaporise, leaving small fragments of rock. The comet, transformed into a steam cloud, than hits the ground. It wont produce a mushroom cloud but if it hit a city it would definatly cause major destruction. Think high speed steam blast at an absurd temerature, scolding people and blowing down buildings. T.Neo 08:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tunguska Event, 1908. Significantly smaller object. Just forget the conspiracy theories. Broken Pharoah (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone here ever tried making ice cream fritters or Baked Alaska? A high speed entry of a chunk of POROUS ice could easily impact in a short time. (Tens of seconds if fast enough) Re. Tunguska, think BARBEQUED Reindeer as opposed to BROILED...lol92.18.191.165 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Lance T.

"small fragments"? Depends on your definition. Shoemaker–Levy 9's visible fragments, the largest ones were estimated at the time around 2 km across. An impact like that by a rocky body at speed would definitely produce a huge impact cloud, similar to a mushroom cloud, i argue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Last hope to avoid an edit war
I'm getting concerned that AnmaFinotera is starting to exert ownership of the page, continuing to remove info on DreamWorks' rights from the infobox. It is known that Paramount didn't buy DreamWorks until 2005. And let's look at pages about several pre-1950 Paramount films, such as Going My Way and Double Indemnity. They list only Paramount under the distributor, and make no mention of Universal Studios owning these films today.

An attempt at compromise also failed, but the point is, the infobox should not just be used for current info, as the Going My Way and Double Indemnity articles demonstrate. FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The infobox is for the current info, not historical data that is no longer accurate. As Paramount does now own Dreamworks, listing both is redundant.  It doesn't matter that the two were different companies in the past, as of now, Paramount is the sole distributer. Using other bad articles is not really a good example of what should be done. Feel free to ask in the Film project, however, as few people watch this article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Character name -- given name or surname?
The article referred to Leo Biederman as "Leo". I changed that to "Biederman". Editor Ylee changed it back, saying, "Children are referred to by their first names, not surnames." I understand that rule but I don't see why it applies here. Biederman is an adult and a leading character. Why shouldn't he be referred to by surname? Goodguy2 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Leo isn't an adult; he's still in high school (maybe even junior high school at the film's beginning? I don't have the movie on hand to recheck). Minors in the United States can usually get married with parental consent. The wedding scene wouldn't have nearly the dramatic impact that it does if Leo and Sarah were 24. Your point about Leo being one of the film's leads is a good one, but I don't think it's enough to justify an inconsistency in the wording ("Biederman and Sarah . . ."). YLee (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My assumption was that children were referred to by given name to distinguish them from other family members. Sarah's parents are characters mentioned in our plot summary, but Leo's aren't.  Are you saying that, if Wikipedia had existed 20 years ago, it would have referred to Macaulay Culkin as "Macaulay", but then, on his 18th birthday (in 1998), changed all those references to "Culkin"?  I'd say that a child, real or fictitious, can be referred to by surname where there's no ambiguity. Goodguy2 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, children are referred to by first names because they're children, not due to possible ambiguity (although you're absolutely right that that would happen without this policy). This applies only when writing about fiction; when dealing with real people everyone, whether a minor or not, is referred to by their surnames (as seen in Dakota Fanning's article, for example), as per the required encyclopedic tone. YLee (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see -- I didn't realize you were drawing a distinction between real and fictional. There's some merit to that distinction, though.  I'm not all that familiar with Wikipedia; is there a policy page about this that elaborates on the rule?  The WP:TONE page you linked to has some good points but doesn't address given name/surname. Goodguy2 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the guideline about using surnames to refer to people, see WP:SURNAME. (It and WP:TONE are small chunks of the entire Wikipedia Manual of Style.) I can't find a specific guideline about referring to children by given names when discussing fiction, although it's in my experience the de facto standard. YLee (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Spurgeon name
One of science fictions "in jokes" from "The Golden Age of Sci Fi" is the use by authors of various names to put each other into their work. Robert Duval plays an astronaut called "Fish" Spurgeon. I wonder if this is a nod to author Theodore Sturgeon. Just a sci-fi trivia point. It might be mere coincidence. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Realism (Leo Beiderman on dirt bike)
What? Nobody in any of the cars had a gun? They just let Leo Beiderman ride by and didn't challenge him to stop and surrender his dirt bike to save their kids, too, or shoot him if he refused to stop? Especially when he stopped to pick up Sarah and the baby, nobody tried to hop on the dirt bike.... such altruism flies in the face of human nature in an impending disaster. Seems farcical.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I had that thought too, but I don't think you need altruism to give Leo a pass. At the point Leo finds Sarah, people haven't abandoned their cars yet; they really hope traffic will start moving again. And there is also the fact that most people don't know how to ride a motorcycle; most people who do would already be on motorcycles.--Oldgringo2001 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Beiderman vs Biederman
The name of Elijah Wood's character (and by extension that of the comet) is spelled Beiderman throughout the movie (notepad and handwritten floppy disk label in Dr Wolf's lab at the start of the movie, Magazine cover in the school auditorium). In fact, the only place where the name is spelled Biederman is in the movie's credits. There are sources that cite the names of the character and the comet as Beiderman, though most admittedly follow the credits' spelling. Should we change the name in the article, or at least mention this fact? Iago 212 22:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

where is
Deep impact 2?Mazarin07 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Opera
Not listed in the music tracks is an opera in the beginning of the movie. Any information on it? MartinezMD (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A VERY late reply :-) It's the duet of Rodolfo and Marcello from Puccini's La Bohème, Act 4: "O Mimì, tu più non torni" (Oh Mimì, you will not return"). The two are musing about their lost loves. C.schwind (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Meaningless Sentence
What is the final sentence in the Plot section even trying to say? "That extra shooting time 2,000 this movie and the 1800 cars has completed shooting in two days of shooting on the highway that has not been opened were mobilized." If someone has any idea what this is supposed to mean, please make it more understandable. If not, it should be deleted. Dragonfiremalus (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been IP-inserted gibberish. Have removed. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Note regarding the spelling of Biederman
Footnote six says: "Many sources spell this Biederman because it appears that way in the closing credits. However, there are a few written instances within the movie of the spelling Biederman, indicating that it was the intended spelling during production, and the closing credits were in error." Firstly, everything after that final comma to the end of the note looks like original research. It simply end with the note that there are written instances within the film of the spelling [ however it's spelled ]. Secondly, the name is spelled the same way both instances in this footnote, so it's meaningless. I would check the film myself, but I don't have a copy on me at the moment. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  22:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and fixed this. Invertzoo (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Source novel
I have added details (yet again) about the Arthur C Clarke novel The Hammer of God on which Deep Impact was originally based. This is highly relevant to the article as Clarke was publicly disgruntled when he received no credit in the film and there are multiple sources that show this. 86.150.240.108 (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it does belong in the article, but there's a lot more to it than that. I've just expanded the section to give a more complete picture. According to press reports at the time, Spielberg/Paramount also threatened Touchstone with a lawsuit because of Armageddon, though the matter was later dropped. That too would be worth mentioning if somebody has the time to find the appropriate sources. I'm just thinking that for a film that was one of the Top 10 highest-grossing films of 1998, this article could do with being expanded a bit more. 217.44.78.170 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)