Talk:The Day After Tomorrow

Question
There is absolutely nothing between drilling for the ice samples and the UN conference. Could we maybe get some details about how we got from there to here in the movie? It would be nice to those who haven't actually seen it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually the sequence: drilling in Antarctica-conference in New Delhi. There's nothing inbetween.  It actually works in the movie.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. The way its worded here makes its sound like there was...IDK, teleportation or something involved. They (movie filming folks) really ought to think about better transitioning for this sort of thing. At any rate, thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Unrealistic
I think The Day After Tomorrow is a 2004 American science-fiction film that depicts the catastrophic effects of global warming in a series of extreme weather event... is misleading. That definitely implies that the film, with some degree of realism, actually does depicts the catastrophic effects of global warming. But the film does no such thing; it needs to be stated that the effects described are unrealistic William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with you, that statement requires a source. Even the "criticism" section doesn't support "completely unrealistically" ....  I think I "unrealistically" could be considered supported.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this covered by the fact that the movie is considered science-fiction? Doniago (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at the current lead, I recommend the phrasing be removed entirely until there's consensus. Peacock followed by CN is pretty garish-looking and detracts from the article IMO. Doniago (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll take it out. I expect WMC to restore it, though.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't that depicts the catastrophic effects of require a source then? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think that's apparently simply by looking at the poster, but if you feel it should be cited feel free to request a citation or remove it. Doniago (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The other really unrealistic aspect is every time people were shown watching TV news they were watching Fox in America and Sky in the UK, not credible that people would only turn to Rupert Murdoch at such a time of global turmoil. Also extremely unbelievable 1950s style BBC accents being heard on the Sky News report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.110.162.4 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tempest in a teapot alert here, guys. "Depict" just means "to represent, as in a picture". Can you imagine a world where every creative visual work was required to reflect reality? Relax. It's the art thing. – AndyFielding (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Why resurrect a thread that's over ten years old just to say this, though? DonIago (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Climate change references
In the film, global warming leads to extreme weather and then global cooling takes place ushering in the new ice age as depicted. If 'global cooling' is removed again then we must remove 'global warming' from the article as well. It doesn't matter that the film's depiction of 'global warming' leading to 'global cooling' (ice age) doesn't make sense to some editors or others; that is what is depicted in this film. Global warming within itself does not create ice which comes from cooler climate. The film depicts the earth making changes to stop global warming by cooling itself down (global cooling). While it certainly tries to send a message, which has been met with criticism, this article is about the movie and what it depicts no matter how far-fetched it may seem to go from warming to sudden cooling. It's an entertaining fictional movie. WalesJM1970 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the term "global cooling" ever used in the film? Doniago (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the term "extreme weather events" ever used? While certain terms used in this article to describe the film may not be found verbally mentioned, they are indeed visually depicted. In the film, it certainly visually displays global cooling all the way to the extent of the ultimate global cooling event, an ice age. An "ice age" or, more precisely, "glacial age" is a generic geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, also known as "global cooling". Of course, in this film the long-term reduction is only visually depicted at it's sudden beginning which, according to the basis of the film, is caused by global warming. Again, not debating the science of what the film displays, but merely describing what it depicts.WalesJM1970 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that using the words "global cooling" to refer to an overall drop in the average temperature of the world is a reasonable use of English.


 * I am off to the Transformers page to complain about the unrealistic depiction of life on other planets! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

End of film seems to be incorrectly described.
"but find Sam's group alive after being rescued by Black Hawk helicopters" -- I just saw the film two days ago, and I am almost certain this is wrong: The father finds the son and companions in the library. Then the father, his companion and the people from the library start walking (probably after a telephone call -- I can't remember) and are soon(?) picked up by a helicopter. Kdammers (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

They are picked up on the ice outside of New York City by helicopters. I can't say what kind they are. I do remember that the phones are down, except for one rather dramatic scene where Sam swims in freezing water to make a call with a payphone (which does not require that the power lines be working) before it is submerged. However, Sam's father brought a radio and I assume they signaled for the helicopters because at about that time we see the new president announcing that there are survivors in New York City, then cut to groups of survivors on top of skyscrapers as rescue helicopters circle. I don't have a citation for this, it's just what I remember from watching the movie dozens of times.FiddlersFingers (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

More--there are other incorrect elements. Sam and Laura do not share a kiss, they share reminiscences, and as far as I can remember he never confesses his feelings in so many words. Also, where did the names for the president and vice-president come from? I don't think they're ever mentioned in the movie. Finally, the description of the expedition to get penicillin from the stranded tanker completely leaves out the very dramatic and very unrealistic sequence where the protagonists fight a pack of wolves that escaped from the zoo in an earlier scene. It doesn't exactly fit in with the rest of movie, but I think it definitely deserves mention in the summary. Again, I don't have citations and don't know where to find them. If someone can point me in the general direction of where I might look, I'll see if I can find some. FiddlersFingers (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Day After Tomorrow & The HAB Theory
The bibliography should also include " The HAB Theory" written by Allan W. Eckert. The book depicts an earth axis shift catyclism similar to that in "Day After". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.97.63 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if that were accurate, it shouldn't be in the article unless some reliable source noticed it. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Instant freezing - Bad Science ?
Air is not a good conductor of heat. It seems impossible that things will freeze instantly. Heat moves very ver slowly. It is shown in the movie that a cold wave comes from the sky towerds ground freezing things instantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.62.2 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole movie is science-fiction, so if we start listing and citing sources for why and how each unrealistic and/or inaccurate scene there is in the movie, we'll be here a very, very long time. So long, in fact, that by the time we are finished, climate change may very well be irreversible. Much more piratical to just cite climate scientists who have pointed out how flawed the science in the movie is. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Science fiction does imply that there should be an element of correct science. The science in this film is just bad. There are problems with the summary, I do not know to what degree that follows the film. For instance the confusion between research results and theories - not the same thing. The "delaying [of] their return home...the latter develops into three massive hurricane-like super storms with eyes holding extremely cold air that instantly freezes anything it comes in contact". Delayed return doesn't develop into a hurricane, but a storm might! The storm is either a hurricane or it is not! And air cannot be cold enough to instantly freeze anything it comes in contact with - if it was that cold the characters would all have been dead.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We summarize the plot of the movie. We may cite sources that specifically address the movie. We may not cite sources that do not specifically discuss the movie to address whether or not elements of the movie are plausible. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Undue tag added
From the tag: I am fine with a criticism section but not so with how this is presented. Is there for example any constructive criticism or defense to some of the points made here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. The climate-change denialism with which this article has been infested is present in this section as written, which has been largely cherry-picked from the USA Today source. After I copyedit it according to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, I'll remove the tag.  Mini  apolis  17:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Plot expansion
Please review this addition to the plot summary, which takes it well over WP:FILMPLOT's recommendation of 700 words maximum, and advise if you feel that this is an improvement to the article. DonIago (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)