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.
The difference? Maybe that this one wasn't, you know, boring as hell?
shareDeep Impact attempts a realistic response to a cosmic threat. Armageddon is just a warm-up exercise in loud stupidity from the patron saint of the loud and stupid, Michael Bay, who would take this practice run and get much, much better at being even louder and more stupid. Have you ever seen Michael Bay? It's the face of abject stupid mediocrity and the blank-eyed stare of the never-grown-up slow adolescent.
This is a hateful, miserable film, which even Bruce Willis cannot save. Ben Affleck is potentially a good actor but he's spent so much time in these Bay schlock-fests that his career has been, like almost everything in the Bay universe, torpedoed.
-drl
then go watch "Schindler´s list"
shareAffleck only did 2 Bay movies: this one and that Pearl Habor movie. His first career trouble began because of Daredevil and Gigli and Bennifer overexposure, not the Bay movies.
shareWell, Deep Impact didn't have the astronauts just trying to break the comet in two pieces, the idea was to blow it up completely. Also, in Deep Impact they were really astronauts, not oil drillers. Deep Impact also took its time with the story, unlike Armageddon, which told it at fast forward speed.
shareSo I guess you forgot the 6 astronauts that went on the mission as well?
share"taking time with the story" really means boring as hell.
Jack Shephard "You disrespect his memory by wearing his face but you're nothing like him."
If a scenario like this actually happened the story wouldn't "take it's time". If we found a asteroid coming towards earth it wouldn't just stop and wait for us to make a plan. IT would come fast, like the story in Armageddon :3
shareWhere we had 2 1/2 weeks notification in this movie, an asteroid of that size would've been detected years in advance.
share
they explained this in the movie LOL
they were scanning the sky, "but it was an effen big sky, and we could scan only 10%"
paraphrasing of course LOL
http://myimpressionz.tk
Instead of going the usual "Deep Impact had a story, while Armageddon was *beep* stupid" angle that this will recieve, Deep Impact was too boring. Too many characters with weak storylines, too little destruction, etc..
Armageddon, even if it did have a weaker story, was miles better visually. NASA also allowed usage of some of their equipment such as Space Suits, filming near the actual space shuttle, and a lot of other cool stuff. Plus, Oil Drillers training to be astronauts just sounds cool..
Deep Impact got an academy award for Best Actor - The Tidal Wave. It focuses largely on Earth with some occasional scenes of astronauts with no depth. Armageddon focuses largely in space with some occasional scenes of Earth's civilizations with no depth.
Armageddon wins for having J.J. Abrams onboard.
Armageddon was like one huge music video, edited by someone who must have been busting to go to the toilet. Deep Impact is more like a traditional film with a conspiracy aspect.
share[deleted]
The difference is Armageddon is good, Deep Impact isn't.
shareJerry Bruckheimer
shareJerry Bruckheimer produced films are like their own little universe, so the difference is that this is done in the exact style of "The Rock" with even the same president. Deep Impact seems like it's an Emmerich production, i'm not sure and too drunk to check.
I think a lot of people have me on ignore, and it's a shame.
I believe Armageddon is part of the Criterion Collection. IDK if you take that into account but I think it means it's a good movie...
share[deleted]
TO mike cable:
WE HAVE A WINNAH!
[deleted]