They both were released in the same year (a month apart in fact), both similar premises (asteroid coming to hit earth), and very nearly the same IMDB scores too.
Oh yeah, apparently such a crap movie as this can be nominated for 4 oscars though.
deep impact= sissy meteor crashing flick and no bruce willis!
armageddon= action-packed adventure with bruce willis!
mass effect 3 sucks! ...after shepard gets hit by harbinger laser beam
Deep Impact- awsome movie with Mary McCormack and Elijah Wood
Armageddon- excellent movie with Bruce Willis and Steve Buscimi
Deep Impact- nothing sucks about this movie
Armageddon- Be Affleck is the only thing that sucks about this movie
if I were Bruce Willis I'd let him take his spot on the meteor
Seriously no one is looking for the world to end we have too much
left to do I know no one will ever be ready but that won't happen for
a very long time,or so I hope like billions of years from now!
[deleted]
Yes it did!
The most meaningful difference to explain the difference does not seem to have been pointed out.
Deep Impact = directed by a woman
Armageddon = directed by a man
If you compare the biological facets of the sexes and our core motives, and you compare the execution of these stories, it all makes sense. I am not saying that sometimes women end up providing flat near-boring moments in a well meaning movie aimed at touching upon humanity, but my theory is.
It wasn't until Katherine Bigelow turned into a man that she stopped making movies that the Oscars could ignore because they fell asleep a couple times throughout.
====
Getting serious though. I loved both these movies growing up. Equally. I have sort of felt that Armageddon stays as relevant and awesome, yet Deep Impact has gotten weaker over time? It is way behind as far as a well executed product. I'm dealing with the final execution not the stories.
For instance, the scene with Tea Leoni and the step mother is pretty bad to look at these days, it almost ruins the film. I guess my 15 yr old mind thought the scene was meant to be for adults, but seeing it as an adult its some bizarre removal tonally, poorly placed, acted by her, and stops all pacing. If you put that scene on Youtube then the scene with Tea and the president, can you guess which one wouldn't get compared to Daytime TV?
On the other side, Armageddon has no scene that doesn't "work" and fit. Even the jet plane, pillow talk and spinning the girl with Steven Tyler whining in your ear, and Liv crying in an empty NASA room - all WORKS. From an execution stand point. I get it won't be some peoples taste, but it still works.
armageddon is cursi and stupid
deep impact is coherent
both movies have great destruction scenes but i prefer deep impact
Deep Impact aims for emotions, Armageddon aims for explosions. Saying one is infinitely better than the other as both are flawed. FWIW, the lead female in Armageddon (Tyler) acts circles around the lead female in DI (Leoni), but depending on your mood one or the other can be a great and fun movie to watch. Neither is particularly accurate on the science front, but at least the makers of Armageddon never tried to pretend it was.
When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbidden...am I alone here?
I liked both movies but Armageddon is more fun to watch (if that's the mood you're in).
Just a small difference- BRUCE WILLIS!
Deep impact is a disaster and quite frankly does not deserve to be compare with this.
Armageddon is an emotional movie where ben and bruce are brilliant!
PS. Bay's best movie has to be the rock!
trishulmody -
Bruce & Ben and the rest of the cast are brilliant.
And it is an emotional film (for me, because Bruce dies, and I didn't expect that to happen)
PS. I like Armageddon more than the Rock, because Armageddon has got that amazing ensemble cast thing going on
Deep Impact is a serious movie and Armageddon is a cartoon.
sharehttps://lebeauleblog.com/2018/01/19/movies-of-1998-bracket-game-armageddon-vs-deep-impact/
What is there that can be said about a movie that I have gone out of my way to avoid seeing for the last twenty years? The one-two punch of action trash that is director Michael Bay and producer Jerry Bruckheimer was already well known enough to me that I was pretty sure which asteroid movie I was willing to give my seven bucks to (that’s about right for 1998, right?) I hadn’t really cared for Bay’s Bad Boys or The Rock, and I consider Bruckheimer’s Con Air from the previous year to be one of the most unpleasant movies I’ve ever seen pretending to be an audience-pleasing action romp. No way was I giving this pair money just so they could torture me for two and a half hours. I’ll give Bruckheimer credit where credit is due based on his role in bringing the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie to the big screen along with stuff like Remember the Titans and Beverly Hills Cop, but if you balance those against Coyote Ugly, Days of Thunder, Pearl Harbor, Kangaroo Jack, G-Force, and the remainder of the Pirates movies, I think we can all agree that the guy owes us an apology. Michael Bay has gone on to curse us with the Transformers movies as a director/producer and nothing of any discernible quality when producing anything else. Critics generally thumbed their noses at Armageddon upon its release, with Roger Ebert naming it the worst movie of the year – – so of course audiences made it the second biggest box office hit of the year. Sometimes we really don’t deserve nice things.