Talk:The Day After Tomorrow/Archive 1

Inspiration
Here's my justification for adding the book The Coming Global Superstorm back in to the article even though an earlier revision removed it. Strieber and Bell are both credited in IMDB as "source material: book The Coming Global Superstorm", which means that the movie is indeed associated with the book. Anyone who's interested in the movie may want to know the source material that inspired it, since that's a piece of information that it's not always easy to obtain.

I changed the wording from saying the movie is "based on" the book, to saying that it is "inspired by" the book, to reflect Tregowith's comment. --64.81.243.120 21:02, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shameless Plugs
Am I the only one who noticed plugs for FOX news every other scene, not to mention NOT every movie 20th cnetury FOX creates HAS to destroy the north east, but they seem to anyway


 * Actually, I was amused to see the VP's first speech as President was being broadcast on the Weather Channel.


 * Well, it was MADE BY Fox, so it's very silly, but excusable. Like any other Hollywood movie, it has product placement. Atinoda 23:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It also eliminates FOX's need to ask for permission to use others' trademarks; I don't think it deserves mention. --159.90.80.231 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Making the article more PC
Just remember that this movie is a work of science-fiction and should not be confused as a documentary. So there's no need to keep making it more politically-correct in wording. And don't confuse NPOV with PC. Cburnett 19:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Far more like fantasy than Science Fiction. Science Fiction contains science.213.86.59.92 17:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not science fiction but it is speculative fiction, which is a form of the same. Science fiction takes unlikely science and talks about what would happen. Speculative fiction takes unlikely (impossible in this case) events (rather than science) and does the same. Atinoda 23:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily deny that it is science fiction either; Frankenstein is also science fiction despite having little basis in the modern understanding of biology and/or electricity except a few agreed-upon facts (like the agreed-upon basis of global warming). --Lenoxus 21:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots
I added 4 screenshots of the movie. I can get any or change to others if there are any requests. The four I added, I think, are meaningful to the plot:
 * Jack presenting his idea to the UN
 * The kids trapped in a flooding Manhattan
 * The flash freezing at the NYPL
 * Final freezing of the statue of liberty

Cburnett 23:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The African woman
African woman Jama and her daughter, neither of whom speak English,

I'm pretty sure the African woman left the library along with the other people. I'm sorry if I made a mistake; I'd have to see it again to be sure.- B-101 12:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No Jama and her daughter stayed with Laura so she could translate. On Emmy or Jake's fansite there is a cast photo of the survivors in the library, and she's in the pic. Hope this clears it up.- LauraChapman

Inaccuracies
First, I'm not being unreasonable nor objecting to qualifying the inaccuracies in the movie. However, I don't think interjecting "and inaccurately" in the opening sentence is the best way. Please discuss ways to improve the "See below..." blurb.

Besides, a simple "and inaccurately" don't justify *why* it's inaccurate. Put the justifications where they belong: The Day After Tomorrow (movie)

Cburnett 18:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 19:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I think that you are being unreasonable in objecting to any mention of inaccuracies. They exist, they are gross and notable. You say:


 * besides "innacurately" is too strong of a phrase. No it isn't, its entirely appropriate, and supported by the science analysis section.
 * there's a blurb right after the introduction referening down to the science analysis, which says it's implausible - but "inaccurate" should be in the intro, not just relegated to the science analysis.

Perhaps if you read what I write, you'd see I'm not objecting to mention of inaccuracies but the way you've insisted it be done (did you read what I wrote above?).


 * Yes. But you keep removing the word inaccuracy for the intro nonetheless.

I say it's too strong because the entire global warming argument is not solid; no one person knows the answer. Calling it inaccurate is saying that it is definitively wrong, which all the arguments over global warming means nothing is definitive. No conclusions made about global warming will be definitive and will remain controversial for quite some time.


 * (William M. Connolley 21:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Thats not the point.

The key word in the science section is "probable." The only thing there that says flat-out wrong is contained in an external link.

I have no idea what your background is, but calling something wrong in a controversial scientific argument is laughable.


 * (William M. Connolley 21:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Oddly enough, I'm a climate modeller.

I've changed the text to be more suitable to me. Again, I have no objections to putting inaccuracies in the article, just the way you've insisted it be done. Cburnett 20:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I've shuffled your text and deleted some. I'm happy with its-fiction-not-a-doc. There is no need to get involved in a discussion of the science of GW on this page. That is not the point. The point is, does the movie resemble the current understanding of the science (and the answer is: no).


 * I kept removing "and inaccurately" because it doesn't say much. It doesn't answer why, it doesn't say who says that it's inaccurute....nothing, just that it is.  I thought it was fine, as was, but I can certainly settle on what's there now.  My key complaint (obfuscated with length-limited edit summaries) is that it was borderline a weasel word phrase compounded around a controversial topic: global warming.  I don't have a problem with calling TDAT's flaw/inaccuracies/whatever, just the way it was being done.  Pointing out that it's science-fiction and shouldn't be considered a documentary (and thus can't be relied upon as science) says a lot more than "and inaccurately" does.  That's all. Cburnett 21:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)) OK... I'm not totally convinced by your dislike of "inaccuracies" *but* I am quite happy with the current text, so we can end the war :-)


 * Still, one of the parts which seems sci-fi ( the mention of mammoths which were flash frozen while standing up eating, the basis for the flash freezing storms later in the movie) is actually fact. I recall reading of at least two such cases in Siberia.


 * Seriously who gives s*** about when the commercials in football game in a science fiction movie are?

Category?
I see DAT is now post-apocalyptic. This is technically wrong, since its actually a description of the apocalypse. So to speak. Maybe thats too picky... William M. Connolley 23:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

This is neither apocalyptic nor post-apocalyptic. An apocalypse--a semi-lost ancient genre--requires some sort of heavenly adventure or supernatural experience (a la Dante's Inferno or the Book of Revelation). Just because it describes the end of the world doesn't mean its apocalyptic.


 * Since when did it have to be a heavenly adventure or supernatural experience? Post-nuclear worlds have been a part of the post-apocalyptic scene for years now.  My intepretation of post-apocalyptic is something depicting a great loss of life and destruction, and which results in something so great that the world is irreperably changed for the survivors.


 * Now, the film may not be specifically post-apocalypse... but the term is no longer something to describe the 'end of the world' or 'the end of the world' caused by non-human or mortal hand. -Kingpin1055 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * DAT could probably be considered "apocalyptic" in casual conversation, but perhaps not by any "official" definition. In any case, "post-apocalyptic" doesn't seem to apply to a story whose entire central plot is about the apocalypse in progress — Left Behind and Dr. Strangelove would fit in the same category, but not Mad Max. Lenoxus 22:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Analysis POV
The commentary is major POV and contains weasel words. 24.250.136.236 09:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The template you posted deals with NEtrality and Facts. 1) I don't know how netral the section could be consering the section. 2) It states clearly in the section It should be noted that there is little if any meteorological or climatological science in the actual events of the movie. It relies upon a concept borrowed from chaos theory that a critical change can rapidly destabilise an entire system, but many scientists believe the "global superstorm" depicted in the movie is extremely implausible, if not impossible. It is the "Science" inside the movie compared to real life. --^BuGs^ 09:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The science in the film is junk. The superstorm stuff has no basis at all, as far as I can see. It also has no obvious relation to the other idea, the THC shutdown; which would not happen quickly. The dispute tag is baseless so I've removed it. The article sources a number of reputable sites that attack the "science" in the film; I see no reputable sources defending it, other than as a bit of harmless fun. William M. Connolley 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

I removed this para:


 * A curious point to notice is that Jack Hall's research and presentation about the climate shift in the movie are very similar to recent findings about geomagnetic reversal, a study about reversions in geomagnetism of the Earth. The studies show we can be in the middle of one (a constant and gradual reversion that will probably take hundreds of years to complete). However there is still no proof that links geomagnetic reversal with glaciation or if it is really happening.

I'm not sure that there is much geomag/climate connection. If the film doesn't make the connection, and no-one else does, then it probably doesn't belong. William M. Connolley 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC).
 * That works. :) --^BuGs^ 17:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted are weasel words, plain and simple. Furthermore the science may have been exaggerated, but it does conform to a lot of articles here on Wikipedia. BlueGoose 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why not rm "it should be noted"? I just did. For the rest... find me the superstorm stuff. Or a THC shutdown in days. Its nonsense, AFAIK. If its elsewhere in wiki, that should be looked at. William M. Connolley 20:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

I've come here several times just for the scientific basis part. I see no reason for it to become it's own article.

Bluegoose has (again?) edited the science section, with the sentence claiming there is little scientific and climatological evidence is removed unless a source is provided. But... there *is* evidence provided: read the section. There is the GM link; the WHOI link; and the analysis within the section. Furthermore, BG said just above Furthermore the science may have been exaggerated, but it does conform to a lot of articles here on Wikipedia. but BG has rather notably failed to actually find these claimed "conforming" articles. So BG, please, find these articles that you claim to exist. William M. Connolley 10:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Splitsection
While I am not a total weather science person, I am a Phyicis minor. Though the questionableity of the section or the movie for that matter does not or does mantain that this could or could not happen, this is just a movie. For purposes being maybe the science section should be seperate from the movie page. Note: Maybe we should add the tag also. --^BuGs^ 18:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am an expert :-). I don't think it deserves a separate article - as far as can be seen, there *is* no substance to the science, so the "science" is only of interest within the article. The real science of THC shutdown - or not - is covered in Effects_of_global_warming. I don't know where the superstorm is covered, but then I don't think that is science at all. William M. Connolley 20:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well... then we should add a tag saying "All the science in this section is only limited to the movie, not to real life." :) --^BuGs^ 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for a separate article—users looking for a scientific analysis of the film will likely look here, not on a separate article. – Mipadi 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

THE AUTHOR OF THIS PAGE CLAIMS TO BE A "PHYICIS" MINOR? THAT'S "PHYSICS", PHREND!

I took out the splitsect. I seems to have had no support. William M. Connolley 10:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Naming
I moved this article back to The Day After Tomorrow since it dominates an alternate title, an unlinked novel, and a 3 year old band with only a couple albums whom has apparently broken up. It is NOT naming convention to put this article at The Day After Tomorrow (film) in this case. Besides, The Day After Tomorrow was a redirect to a dab page. Cburnett 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

tends to shift between real scientific fact and total science fiction, etc
Does "tends to shift between real scientific fact and total science fiction..." have any standing? AFAIK all the main ideas, as presented, are sci-fi. Where is the sci-fact?

And Supercooled air would actually warm before reaching the surface, as what does not occur as it descends into New York and Scotland; this is also explained in the movie - explained as in, a plausible scientific reason why it should be so? Or explained away, as in trying to drawa veil of plausibility over total nonsense? William M. Connolley 11:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is some sound science in the film. Cburnett 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Science fiction contains science - either established science, or possible future science (sometimes extremely improbable). This movie abrogates currently established scientific principles (such as the laws of thermodynamics...) and is better described as -Fantasy-.


 * I've never seen the thing and never will... what kind of sci-fact is there in it? (do I care?) William M. Connolley 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The supercooled air was for dramatic effect.

The African woman (2)
Why is she reffered to as african woman? because she's black? Her speaking french could mean she's from Haiti, for example...

FiP Как вы думаете? 19:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, at least in the US, "black" is not as politically correct as african american...despite the terms inaccuracies. I'm in totally agreement of calling her a black woman since we have no clue of her ancestry, only her skin color. Cburnett 04:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved the discution to its own section; hope you don't mind.
 * I guessed this had something to do with political correctness, even though I feel that implying that all black people come from africa is a sign of ignorance :s
 * FiP Как вы думаете? 09:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * she could have been french, too. or from algeria, who knows.84.169.239.112 15:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it even necessary to note that she is black? Dominicanboy149 13:15, 06 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It identefies her. &#39;&#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Lizzie Harrison&#124;Lizzie&#91;&#91;User talk:Lizzie_Harrison&#124;Harrison]]&#39;&#39;&#39;]] 19:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible error in article...
In the Scientific analysis/criticism section I think there is an error.

It says: "The term supercooled air used to describe cold air in the movie is incorrect, since it implies that the air is colder than its boiling point (about -190 C)."

Shouldn't it say frezzing point rather than boiling point? Just thought it looked weird. Sorry if I am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.180.146 (talk • contribs)

Well, I think it is correct since air is a gas (or combination of gases) in its natural state. Even in very cold temperatures, such as -30 degress F, air is still breathable (and not in liquid form). I think the statement is trying to say that supercooled air is referred to in the movie as being below the point where it is no longer air. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Heat Burst
The scene where the kids are running down the hall with a deadly freezing microscale super cold front chasing them seems to be grossly inacurate. The scientists describe the situation as very very cold air from the lower stratosphere subsiding to the ground too fast to warm. However, this would lead, not to air capable of flash freezing a human (much less an active gas line), but to a ultra hot heat burst, that is, assuming the air in the lower stratosphere is very dry. Since the air is subciding "very fast" we can infer that its downward momentum would counteract the bouyancy brought on by adiabatic warming (that's right, I said warming!), and, by the time the air reaches the ground, it very well could be capable of melting all that ice. See the article on heat bursts. I should note that hollywood has always sacrifeced sound science for entertainment. I found the movie almost comical when I first saw in in high school, and now, majoring in meteorology in college, I can find even more ways the movie is laughable (see my comment below). I mean, anybody that has any background in science will tell you that global warming is real, but this is just stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricane Omega (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 August 2006 UTC


 * On the other hand, heat bursts seem to usually happen in summer. In Winter, meteorologist are more worried about the wind-chill factor, so in fact air moving that fast might very well create a wind-chill factor that could counteract the adiabatic warming. However, I'm not a physics major, so don't take my word for it. As for the film being laughably exaggerated, and cutting corners in the rules of physics, it's supposed to be that way by design. --200.44.7.102 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hey, boss, turn on the Weather Channel right away; we might need to issue a tornado warning!"
The above paraphrase from the movie demonstrates Hollywood's gross misinterpretation of the National Weather Service. Having held an internship at a local NWS office, I know that there is a compitent staff of meteorologists working at the station 24 hours a day. Also, warnings are issued by the forecasters on duty without a lot of red tape; they certainly don't have to call the MIC at 3 in the morning, and they certainly would not have to check the weather channel to decide whether to issue a warning. That's what AWIPS is for; although they may have a TV tuned to the weather channel and other local stations in order to make sure the warning was desseminated properly. Note also that, once the forecaster generates the warning, it is automatically distributeed to media outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricane Omega (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 August 2006 UTC

Manhattan Island 'sinking'
'*Manhattan cannot be flooded by rain as shown in the movie because it is an island. The water would run off into the East and Hudson River and, finally, into the Atlantic ocean.'

Normally I might agree with that... but I thought it was somewhat implied that the level of water in the bay was rising in addition to the rain that'd been coming down for three days straight. It certainly looked like such was happening, especially when looking at the West Side Highway before it was submerged....Kingpin1055 16:35, 21 August 2006 UTC

Factual Error under Science analysis/criticisms
In the following paragraph it talks about the cooling of the stratospheric air but in the movie where Jack Hall is explaining why the air coming out of the cyclone is so cold he clearly refers to the upper Troposphere where the air can reach temperatures of -75 degree Celsius (-103 degree Fahrenheit) at the equator and -45 degree Celsius (-49 degree Fahrenheit)at the poles.

''The plot-feasibility condition that descending stratospheric air would be cold, because it was apparently descending too fast to warm up, is incorrect. The potential temperature of stratospheric air is higher, not lower than the temperature of the surface air. As well, rapidly descending, rarified air would have relatively little thermal mass, and would be compressed to sea level pressure as it descended, heating it greatly and having little effect on sea level temperature. ''

Sources needed
The Science analysis/criticisms as well as the Trivia sections need heavy sourcings. See WP:CITE. Cburnett 06:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it needs to be clarified which specific entries need sourcing... some of the stuff in Trivia does need sourcing... but some of it is evident from watching the DVD.Kingpin1055 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Taglines?
Some of these are just jokes, surely. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 13:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, they all came from the IMDB, I believe. →Cycl   one1 → 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lesson one, IMDb is not the be all/end all. It's frequently displaying inaccurate, or downright false info... so like Wikipedia itself it shouldn't be taken as the primary source of information. Kingpin1055 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the only real ones are "where will you be...?" and "10,000 years ago, one storm changed the face of our planet. On May 28, it will happen again."--159.90.80.231 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah! "Don't make mother nature angry" and "This year a sweater won't do" are so obviously mock-ups--200.44.7.102

Freighter
Okay, where did that stuff come from? What supports it? Looks like nonsense, which unless there's an objection will be removed Kingpin1055 09:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First Aid Kit
The first aid kit in the Library isn't specifically an error, it seems to be the basic type of kit and might not have included the Penicillin... Kingpin1055 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Want source for claim that Vice President in the movie is thought to resemble Cheney
In "References to real life and popular culture" it says "Vice President Becker is thought to resemble Vice President Dick Cheney", would somebody please supplement this with a source, that has a writer or the director saying that, because otherwise I am pretty sure there is the standard disclaimer, that all similarities between persons and events in the movie and in real life are purely coincidental. 89.247.53.108 14:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems there is no source, I'll remove it.Kgs 17:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't you people know how to use Web search engines? I found the following:
 * Guardian review
 * The Filthy Critic
 * MSNBC review
 * freep.com


 * ... and those were all very near the top of the search results. So needless to say, I'll be restoring that little factoid. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mess
This whole article article needs to be cleaned up. There are parts that don't make any sense. Isis4563 02:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)