(Also I should note that I hated 2001 despite it having the most accurate depiction of space travel yet seen in cinema. It bored me to tears. So obviously there’s a balance to be struck between good science and entertaining the audience, it’s just that a movie should do this while adhering to the rules of its own internal logic even if it doesn’t strictly adhere to the laws of physics as we know them. So in the Sunshine example, they could have made it an experimental quantum bomb or something and I would have been fine with it.)

None of these are films “about the science”. Armageddon is not a hard-hitting documentary. It’s not about saying “these films are wrong, haha, they’ve failed,” it’s about saying “these films are wrong, what can that tell us about how we respond to things, and what would a film that was right look like?”

There are enough movie gossip blogs. I have no problem with a movie science critique blog from time to time.

Deep Impact does at least have the dampening effect of having an actual real disaster happen in the movie. Which is kind of nice in comparison to Armageddon which has a little mild rain of rocks.

Let’s face it, the best solution to an object hurtling towards earth was presented in Stargate SG-1. Now that’s what science fiction can do for you.