Talk:Armageddon (1998 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Phrase

Removed "During an shu maif...". I don't believe that it is an actual phrase in the english language. 69.242.95.129 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1996

This movie came out in 1996 actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.195.7 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) This movie came out over the summer of 1996, along with Matilda, Independence Day, Escape to L.A. and Mission Impossible. Somebody needs to figure out why this movie is listed as coming out in 1998 instead of 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.51.171 (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Idea

I just figured out something, this could be where the terroist of 9/11 got the idea.

  • in the movie, it shows a 2-second shot of the World Trade Center getting hit. This may be different because it hits the tower with the radio antenna first and then it shows the other tower without the antenna on fire almost at the floors where it actually hits, the action in the movie is almost the same as what during 9/11.
  • A Taxi Driver says in the movie,"Saddam Hussein is bombing us."

- Chris

  • I get sick of people saying all this "9/11 in dollar bills!" "9/11 in Wingdings!" stuff. For one thing, the Chrystler building, the Grand Central Station, and various other landmarks are also destroyed. Remember, back then no one remotely imagined terrorist attacks as anything more than bombs going off on street level. Besides, neither WTC tower is actually knocked down, and the Taxi driver just says "It could be terrorist attacks" along with 3 or 4 other things.

-Tower7Revived

  • I agree it's revelant to include a WTC 9/11 comment in the text of the main article. Let's be objective - the film showed an accurate future image - one of the towers on fire following a disaster. Summer audiences were asked to suspend disbelief and imagine a disaster event in New York, very close in time to something that actually happened 3 years later.

As far as terrorists getting ideas from it? That's far-reaching conjecture, not supported by any evidence and not neccesary to include in the article.

-rjp2006

More Wikipedia madness. When will the lame conjecture and personal interpretations end?

What I think is slightly more relevant is the fact that the clip in question was cut from post 9/11 showings on television for sensitivity, might be worth a mention.Eddus

Does anyone have a picture of "Dottie" (the meteor) for this page?, i think it's essential.

Movie text [1]


Where in Paris?

"strikes Paris near the Champs-Elysees," - I don't think so: we SEE the Ch-E, but isn't ground zero well behind it? Kdammers 05:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

After the strike, the overhead shot shows what I assume is an impact crater. Near the mid-bottom of the picture is the Arc de Triomphe (spelling?) Douglasnicol 15:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube has already cut deals with many content providers. As such, I don't think you can remove links based on restrictions on linking to copyright violations. We need to respect copyright, but need not be paranoid about linking to things that may or may not be violations. -Quasipalm 05:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Freedom's Heat shield?

When Shuttle Freedom is landing on Dottie, it strikes various parts of it's heat shield on the asteroid numerous times, and the wing leading edges are also struck by bits of rock. Surely this would prevent the shuttle making a safe entry back to Earth? rgbriggsy112 2326 20 Dec 2006 (UTC)


Synopsis needs revising

I am going to rewrite the introductory paragraph of the Synopsis here, but I'm posting here for commentary before I do so. To be precise, many of this introductory's paragraphs statements are contrary to the actual movie.

"Before the film’s title appears onscreen, a narrator (Charlton Heston) informs us that during the time of the dinosaurs, a six mile-wide asteroid struck the Earth at the present day Yucatan Peninsula, causing catastrophic damage to its ecosystem. We are also informed that the probability of a similar disaster in our time is very high (although in scientific reality the chances of a "global killer" asteroid hitting the Earth within a hundred years is very small)."

This paragraph is purposely misleading, and implies that the narrator states more than he actually does. He points out that "This is the Earth, at a time when the Dinosaurs roamed a lush and fertile planet. A piece of rock just 6 miles wide changed all that. It hit with the force of 10,000 nuclear weapons, sending up a million tons of dirt and ash, creating a suffcatating blanket that would blot out the sun for a thousand yards. It happened before, and it will happen again."

While the movie physically depicts the Asteroid striking the Yucatan Peninsula, the narrator does not announce that fact and the article should be more clear to that point. Also, at no point do the narrator OR visuals make any reference to the "timeframe" in which the catastrophe is bound to happen again. He simply states that it definatelly will happen again inventually, a reference to an elementary law of probability: Given infinite time, even the smallest possibility is inevitable. The statement that "we are also informed that the probability of a similar disaster in our time is very high" is the most inaccurate statement in the paragraph. Finnicks 22:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

NO CHAPTER SECTIONS

Let's not add any "chapter" sections to the plot summary. They just take up space & are an attempt to overdramatize an already long plot. So, I took 'em out. Plus, the grammar's gotten REALLY bad. Tommyt 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Shockwaves

Removed this line:

An explosion in space loses much of its efficiency as there is no atmosphere to begin with; without an atmosphere there is nothing to propagate the shockwave.

...as the explosion in the film happens inside the asteroid. Rock and ice can propagate shockwaves quite well. The vaporized materials probably added even more force to the expansion. Noclevername 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Inaccuracies section of article

The article claims that a meteor the size of Texas would vaporize Earth. What is this claim based on?

I find it hard to beleive given how the Giant impact hypothesis posits a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized proto-planet and mentions nothing of Earth getting completely vaporized... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.144.217 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The article erroneously claimed that there should not be separate continents in the opening shots of the film. This is incorrect. [2] Davidyorke (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Meteor

Please note similarities between this film and the 1979 star studded fiasco. (205.250.167.76 01:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

The Bible

We really should bring this up: The Bible does not say a B-list cast will save the world from an asteriod. (205.250.167.76 01:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

What the hell does the Bible have to do with this, and I would hardly call it B-List. Douglasnicol 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Well you don't have to say what the hell does the Bible... gosh but true you are correct. These anonymous spammers lol. GoldenGoose100 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Armageddon score.jpg

Image:Armageddon score.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cast section

The cast section looks rather long, plus is rather NPOV, "Worlds best oil driller", "Loony" etc. Shouldn't it be rewritten? Douglasnicol 17:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word 'ironic'

I changed the part about the fire on MIR. There is nothing ironic about the fuel leaking onto electronics and setting fire to the station. It is just an unfortunate occurence. I know i'm being a grammar/word nazi, but i'll always be until Americans learn proper usage of the word irony and just what it is.

Irony = i pretend to be disable so i can get a concessions ticket for the train, and then the next day am involved in an accident that actually renders me disabled. Not the best example, but it's still irony.

Unfortunate = the space-station sets on fire because it's old and crap.

Here is a better example of irony: Someone trying to blast the intelligence of an entire country's population while demonstrating their own lack of intelligence in not realizing that it is not just Americans that get it wrong, and that not all Americans DO get it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.11 (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually thats not a very good example of irony. The Heakes (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Irony examples:
  • A lorry/truck catches fire on the motorway/freeway and burns out. Its load is a consignment of fire extinguishers.
  • or;
  • A man/woman is crossing the road and is hit by a vehicle. The vehicle is an ambulance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

In line with the manual of style, I am removing the trivia section. If there are any relevant points in the section they can be incorporated in future, once they're in the correct section Stephen Shaw 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Gunpowder and space

Would like to call into question the statement in Scientific Inaccuracy regarding gunpowder (solid firearm propellant) being unable to ignite without oxygen. Ignition of modern firearm propellant is done through percussion (the physical impact of the firing pin onto a primer) which causes the primer to flash and ignite the propellant. Propellants supply their own oxygen for the reaction to result in rapidly expanding hot gas that forces the bullet out. That oxygen is one of the primary reasons what makes them burn so much more quickly than a normal fuel. Refer to traditional Gunpowder (note its mixture) and History_of_firearms#_note-1. Also, a mention about this on Nitpickers [[3]]. Cartridges are already sealed with bullet, primer, and propellant in a single unit. No external oxygen can get in anyway if there was any. Google 'Firearm Oxygen'. I suspect firearms can fire in space without modification but I cannot find any hard source to say so. --Piaweh 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


According to Straightdope.com:

"A conventional firearm would, under most circumstances, work perfectly well in space.

It’s true that there’s no oxygen in the abyss of space, but the firing of a gun doesn’t depend on oxygen even here on earth. Or, rather, it does, but not on the oxygen in the atmosphere."

Hopefully this website clear things up. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Vibration Destruction?

In the scientific inaccuracies section, it says:

Kennedy Space Center launch pads 39A and 39B appear to be only a few hundred feet apart, but in reality they are more than 1.6 miles apart. In either case, two shuttles could never be launched simultaneously; the vibration involved would destroy both vehicles. In a related issue, the space shuttles used in the movies (although specified to have been modified) are designed for orbital space travel, not for landing on objects in outer space.

I was wondering why two shuttles launched near each other, such as a few hundred feet, would be destroyed by this vibration ?? And also, where can I find a wikipedia article on this... phenomenon?

Thanks for any answers - I hope people still check this page.

Scientific Inaccuracies

I read the part about the slingshot effect around the moon; I am no master of physics, and I may be just as wrong as all those people who used to think the world was flat; but even in the weightlessness of space, wouldn't centrifugal force still apply? As I like to phrase it, it is a deterioration in the sense of inertia, such that it may be performed in any area, even zero gravity. I am not sure, of course; but just wondering. I just thought that centrifugal force still applied in space. Danny Sepley (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (or whatever it's actually called) and gravity cancel each other out in a slingshot maneuver. But speaking of which, the article mentions as a scientific inaccuracy that the lack of gravity would mean no G force, much less 11 G, but that's inaccurate. The G force in the movie comes from the acceleration to 25 000 mph, as explained in the movie and noticeable as the agony ends when they reach that speed. Also, I'm pretty sure a slingshot maneuver around the moon would add the speed of the moon relative to the sun to that of your vehicle, so that speed isn't entirely unlikely although they never mention what the speed is relative to and probably didn't think that far. 90.229.149.136 (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed this part, it's just as nonsensical as the movie science:

The crew fires the shuttles rockets to achieve a speed of 25,000 mph so they can slingshot around the moon and catch up to the asteroid. The moon has an escape velocity of 7,600 mph; the moon's gravity would not have been able to grasp on to the shuttle at the speed they were traveling. Instead of looping around the moon, they would have simply flown by it and drifted into space with no hope of return.

This notion of gravity "grasping on" is utter nonsense. You are under the influence of a body's gravity whatever velocity you pass it at. Escape velocity is the boundary between lower velocities that result in being captured into orbit or collision with the body, and higher velocities that result in you passing it by (but with modified trajectory and velocity). It's not a constant, it depends on how far you are from the body's center of gravity. Quoted figures for celestial bodies are usually at the surface. Furthermore, escape velocity refers only to the vector component of velocity on a radial line from the body's center of gravity, your velocity in your direction of travel may be higher.
Here's the killer, to get a gravitational slingshot from a body you would have to be travelling above escape velocity, otherwise you would be captured by it, rather than accelerated towards your target. Whoever wrote this was just piling bad wiki-science on top of bad movie science. If someone with decent physics knowledge has the time, this section need a thorough review - I'm sure there are more bogus scientific "corrections" 86.16.117.32 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need all the "Scientific Inaccuracies" in the article? First of all, it's a film, not real life; secondly, if people cared they could just click on the link which is on the page anyway. Alexrushfear (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Although this movie was indeed loaded with scientific inaccuracies, the fact that a shuttle couldn't land on an asteroid or subsequently leave doesn't seem like a fair criticism, since the vehicles depicted in the movie clearly weren't shuttles; they certainly looked somewhat shuttle-like, but they were obviously some fictional new vehicle. If they were supposed to actually be shuttles I would certainly understand the criticism, but since they weren't supposed to be shuttles it seems a bit silly to complain that they don't behave like shuttles.

Come together?

Uh... didn't the Beatles write/sing "Come together," not Aerosmith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.68.168 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles did in fact write and perform the original version of Come Together. Please read the article for that song further, however. You will see this version in the film is actually a cover of the song that Aerosmith has performed since 1978, twenty years prior to Armageddon.Erpbridge (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You could as well list "scientific inaccuracies" in a Road Runner cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.29.143 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

USD$140 million

The USD and $ appear together twice in the article. In all other places, money figures appear correct with $ only. Can anyone remove the USD in both places? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I presume the reasoning for having USD$ listed is to differentiate from other base amounts that use a currency called $ as well (Canada comes to mind... looking at http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EXCAUS.txt , USD$140 million on July 1, 1998 = approximately CAN$208 million. Hopefully this sheds some light on the matter. Erpbridge (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem is that, If I'm not mistaken, USD$ reads "United States Dollars Dollars". So I think US$ can be correct and also avoid confusing with Canada. Agreed? Kvsh5 (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, Kvsh. US$ even redirects to United States dollar, so use that. Jabberwockgee (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

plot summary

"During this time, another meteorite wipes out much of Paris, France. Then Agra, India and Sydney, Australia." paris is hit in the film, but not india or australia. i'm removing it until someone can prove me wrong. Rolston12 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientific inaccuracies.

"for instance, that the shuttles could not be built fast enough, either from scratch or by modifying existing shuttles (although one scene suggests that the shuttles had already been built in secret, until such time as they were needed)"

Now i'm currently watching this and at no point in the film did they suggest ANY of the equipment was built or even modified for this mission. The "shuttles" aren't shuttles for a start and the equipment was going to be used for a mission to mars. The destination is the only major element that changed.

Besides what's the point of that section? I'm tempted to remove it...Uksam88 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a section on 'Scientific Accuracies Within the Movie' would be more interesting. It would certainly be smaller.
Sounds like WP:TRIVIA to me! Now, sources -discussing- the scientific inaccuracies would be worthwhile as a subsection of Reception. Doniago (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary Issues

Okay, some users here have removed character deaths and the destruction of Paris from the summary repeatedly. I don't know why this is deemed necessary because in case anyone has failed to notice, Paris was totally destroyed in this film and quite a few characters died. These continued edits are trying to write off said film events as irrelevant to mention, when in fact, they are.

Whoever keeps doing this, STOP it. Rewatch the movie and you'll see they are perfectly legit mentions in the synopsis.Meteorico (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the plot summary is already technically longer than recommended at WP:FILMPLOT and those details aren't essential to understanding the film's plot. The goal of the plot section isn't to include everything that occurs, but rather to provide a concise summary. There's no reason to mention Paris specifically or every single character death in detail, IMO of course.
In any event, yelling at people to "STOP" isn't particularly civil, especially when the guidelines support a shorter plot summary than is currently provided. Doniago (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The plot summary in its current form remains a total mess. While it does tell the story of the main characters, it dedicates too much of itself to them and distracts from the main plot, which is Earth's eminent destruction. Also, several events are told out of their chronological order. Paris is destroyed much later in the film than this summary indicates, and the attempt at surface detonation occurred before the loss of the drilling vehicle. There are a lot of flaws in this summary that render it bland and poorly-structured, and I believe it calls for a significant rewrite. Meteorico (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The point of plot summaries on WP is to summarize the plot to its basic details to allow comprehension of the rest of the article. To that end, chronological accuracy is not important if it doesn't affect that understanding and aids to simply the summary. Similarly, this movie is about characters first and foremost; the imminent destruction of the Earth is a setting for all that. It's important, but clearly the film is about the lead roles in a stressful situation. I'm sure there's some cleanup but what is there is not inappropriate by a long shot. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, somebody removed my perfectly accurate point regarding the plot being based on an old Space Patrol episode from 1963. I'm completely sick of this sort of behaviour on Wikipedia, and will take no further part in its maintenance and update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recidivist23 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing/Supposition

"In response to a bad review written by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Bay wrote a letter to the magazine questioning whether Travers knew something "that the other 100 million people around the world who saw my movie don't?" suggesting the film's popularity is tantamount to, or should at least override questions of, its quality."

The above was sourced to Lichtenfeld, p. 223. In fact, a number of statements in the article are sourced to Lichtenfeld, which is unfortunate as it means I'm unable to immediately verify them. That's beside the point in this case though.

I'm curious as to why there isn't a direct link to said bad review, and believe that would be a significant improvement. Additionally, the last clause of the above, starting with "suggesting..." appears to be original research as currently phrased, in that it seems to be interpreting what Bay is driving at. The other possibility is that the "suggestion" is actually mentioned as part of the source, but as mentioned, I am unable to verify that and it is a recent addition to the article (i.e. it was put in after the rest of the text).

I'd appreciate other editors' thoughts on this issue. Doniago (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In my edit summary I stated that the addition was in the citation. Here it is in its entirety:

In Bay's world, however, it is not only the Dan Trumans who minimize and insult the smart. When it comes to answering critics, Bay himself is one of Hollywood's most outspoken directors. Responding to Peter Travers's scathing review of Armageddon, Bay wrote a letter to the editor of Rolling Stone asking if Travers knows something "that the other two million people around the world who saw my movie don't?" (Incidentally, while Bay claims that Travers hates blockbusters, the critic had been ardent in his enthusiasm for Speed and Air Force One.) As Bay's letter continues, it seems to suggest that the film's popularity is tantamount to, or should at least override questions of, its quality.

It can be read [http://www.amazon.com/Action-Speaks-Louder-Violence-Spectacle/dp/0819568015/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305740411&sr=1-1#reader_0819568015 here]. Just do a search on "Armageddon".
Do you want me to add back my original edit or maybe you feel the entire quote is necessary? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional info! I think a block quote might be best in this case. That makes it clear that WP is not claiming that Travers' review is negative; Lichtenfeld is. Obviously it also tidily resolves any OR questions. Thanks again! Doniago (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot 'borrowed' from 60s puppet show?

If you watch 'The Wandering Asteroid' from 1962 series Space_Patrol_(1962) you'll notice some rather obvious parallels with the plot of Armageddon. The whole episode is on YouTube, if you're interested.

I have put this back in because it goes further than 'obvious parallels', the core of the plot is a *direct rip off* of this old kids' SF show, and was not credited in the film.

As I'm a beginner at this, I'd very much like to know who removed this from the talk page, why, and why I wasn't informed as to the reason. Recidivist23 (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Original research, unless you've got a reliable source making the comparison. As for any Talk page alterations, if you can find the diff where your text was removed, there should be a rationale provided. Doniago (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I supposed that as this is only the talk page and not the article itself, interesting conjecture might be tolerated, and maybe even elicit a useful and/or informed response. Recidivist23 (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Box Office Winner of 1998?

I don't want to edit it since I don't know if there are any other circumstances, but according to Box Office Mojo, Saving Private Ryan had a total box office of just over $216 million while Armageddon's box iffice was $201 million. (Not to mention, $488 million of Titanic's total gross was earned in 1998.)

It seems like the first paragraph declaring Armageddon the highest grossing movie of 1998 is wrong. Made even more obvious by the fact that it specifically mentions Saving Private Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.11 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)




Parody

there is a parody out there about this movie don't rightly remember the name, i think it's called meteor disaster is a plastilina movie character. 74.67.102.11 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.39.2 (talk)

MC/RT scores

I'm awre that MC nor RT were around when this film was released, but as per WP:AGG, it doesn't invalidate their use, only that we need to have sources that were from the time of the film's release in addition to this. AGG specifically explains this with an example, and which is perfected suited here. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that this is a film whose critical reception has not changed much with time, as opposed to something like Fight Club, which is a lot more revered now than when it was first released. In Google Books Search, I searched for armageddon michael bay critics and found usable sources. I did see this interesting retrospective comment here: "At the time, most critics scorned the picture as deafening and dumb; in retrospect, it feels like a mature, even witty, exercise in self-reference..." Otherwise, it does not seem though that the current scores detract too much from the retrospective commentary. I would prefer to lead the "Critical reception" section with print sources and mention RT and MC in a more backup capacity. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh certainly - how they are bein used now is a weird phrasing (implying MC/RT's existence at the time) and certainly can be moved. But I'm pointing out that AGG doesn't disallow these for pre-2000 films. Also, I do believe both try to access historical archives of reviews if they can be found. (while there's some bad links in MC's page, there's at least one 1998-dated review). --MASEM (t) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
With a wealth of journalistic critical opinion available why use these at all? They are inherently anachronistic as this article demonstrates. It currently states that the RT "score" is 40% yet if you look it up, it now stands at 39% (with a top critic rating of 16%). WP:AGG advises that "the "Top Critics" at Rotten Tomatoes are generally considered reliable". Should we not be using the latter (much lower) score? Also the wording is misleading as it states "On Rotten Tomatoes it scored..." leading the reader to consider this the original reception figure. Erik makes a good point. Pre 2000's movie scores have little value unless the critical opinion has somehow changed over the years. As that is not the case with this movie my vote is to eliminate them. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Not really. First, the wording does need and can be fixed within this article, so that's not an issue (it definitely should reflect that the sites weren't there at the time of release). And yes, as MC or RT uncover other reviews and add them, the number will change; this is why sourcing these with an access date is important as if the delta between the accessdate and the current date is far different, there's probably an update needed; this a truism for all MC/RT scores for any film irregardless of release date. And most importantly, MC/RT scores alone aren't sufficient for a good reception section, as you say, you need the actual reviews individually to be brought in and pointed out. The point with using RT/MC is to give the reader a rough idea of where the overall review for this film sat without reading through all the reviews possible. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I also want to note that WP:AGG is an essay that provides more specific guidance about citing such websites. The guidelines themselves at MOS:FILM#Critical response say, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film. These will be more reliable in retrospect; closer to the release, review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.)" For Armageddon, statistics are available because the film is still fairly recent. I notice that Metacritic's more reliable sample set is more favorable than Rotten Tomatoes' top critics, which is part of why they tend to be paired. They are different approaches to aggregating reviews. I don't think there's a strong reason to expunge these websites; they can add detail to help shape the overall picture of critical reception with a couple of empirical measurements. It is worth considering that there is some value to noting contemporary reception and present-day reception. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

QUIT MESSING WITH THE PLOT SYNOPSIS

People just won't leave this section alone. Nothing was wrong with it and tampering with it accomplishes nothing. The details included in should not be based on personal opinion of what is important to the plot and what's not, yet these seem to come in constant conflict in this section. Leave it alone.WisdomSeer (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll say it again. To Doniago this time, stop messing with the synopsis, okay? Some of you guys really need to just leave it alone.WisdomSeer (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT. Millahnna (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention WP:OWN. If you feel the changes to the synopsis are inappropriate, get a WP:CONSENSUS, don't yell at people who aren't doing what you want them to do. You say that which details are included should not be based on personal opinion; that goes both ways. DonIago (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Source Issue? [24]

Under section Scientific Accuracy, the last line states NASA uses this film as a teaching tool for administrators and the source points to a two paragraph article that sources the two paragraphs from this Wikipedia Article.

New to Wikipedia, but this doesn't seem legit.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCDewy (talk • contribs) 07:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Armageddon (1998 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armageddon (1998 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the talk page

Pinging all whether more-or-less involved:

Welcome to the talk page. This is where you discuss changes instead of reverting. This is not something that users with this much collective experience should need to have explained to them. GMGtalk 18:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones has reverted the edits in the cast section of the infoboxes because those names he reverted are on the bulletin board of the theatrical poster below, which is a requirement for film infoboxes. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm inviting @Darkwarriorblake: and @Aledownload: on this dispute, regarding the cast in infobox and the cast section on that movie. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The names should be included.. this is an ensemble film not just a Bruce Willis vehicle. Spanneraol (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It seems like the dispute is between having one name (Bruce Willis) or eight names in the "Starring" parameter based on the film poster. My impression is that having just Willis is too narrow of a scope. This isn't a film like All is Lost where it is essentially one person the whole time. I'd rather lean toward listing eight names, but a middle ground could be to find a rule of thumb besides the poster where it is something in between. For example, the AFI Catalog lists here five names for its main cast: Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Liv Tyler, Ben Affleck, and Will Patton. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Erik: The theatrical poster shows the other names in the bulletin box below it. The rule of it states the cast in the bulletin box should be placed in the infobox. Also, TheOldJacobite has been reducing the number of cast members of the cast section to unnecessarily low levels, even though there is a relatively high number of notable actors on that movie. That's another issue with this dispute. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not the "bulletin board", it's called the "billing box". The names in the billing box are all the actors who have it in their contracts to have their names listed in the billing box: that means the stars plus the featured actors. The stars are those actors whose names are shown above the title. This is standard Hollywood practice. It's not ou r job to decide "Oh, this is an ensemble film so all the actors in the billing box should be listed", it's our job to list the stars as they are presented in the billing. The billing is not just the billing box, the billing includes the ';'entirety of the poster. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
What I mean is that every cast member listed in the poster and the billing box below should be in the infobox. That's how it's done in a lot of film articles and clearly Gareth Griffith-Jones doesn't see it that way. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, I am aware of the billing block, which is why I mentioned eight names. As for the rule in the template documentation, it is unrealistic to believe that it should be followed for every film ever. In general, it is a good rule of thumb, but the actors' names in the billing block is still the result of their agents negotiating to have their clients' names included and placed on role significance or past inclusion as precedent. It is not necessarily the best neutral representation of who stars in a film. Like I said, having just one name seems too narrow of a scope. I'm more okay with eight names, but I threw out AFI's five-name listing as a potential compromise if other editors felt like the one is too few or eight is too many. And understood about the "Cast" section, and we have WP:FILMCAST to follow. We find another proper rule of thumb to follow, such as a book about Michael Bay's films, which may have its own cast lists that we can mimic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Problem is that we have reasons to use the names in the posters for a propose to show the listed cast members that are on them. I don't think AFI's five-name listing isn't enough because in the trailers, they revealed Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Liv Tyler, Ben Affleck, Will Patton and Steve Buscemi. I know the trailers don't really count as sources, but we may have to use the billing for the posters for some factors. What does that tell you? BattleshipMan (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's be realistic about this, the movie primarly is known for having an ensemble cast. Yes the way the poster is worded is strange, however we do not have to strictly abide by those guidelines when logic would dictate otherwise. The template instructions actually have criteria to deal with such situations "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.[1] If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus."--Deathawk (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why we have to keep those actor's names on the infobox because of those reasons alone. TheOldJacobite and Gareth Griffith-Jones have been removing them repeatedly without understanding of the billing block seen on that theatrical poster. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Realizing I stepped into something here, I don't see the logic of just putting Willis' name as the infobox cast list. For one, if you look at the poster's bylines, Willis is re-mentioned along with the others in the cast list. Second, it's standard practice on other articles, eg The Shawshank Redemption (Robbins and Freeman have large text credits but are repeated with the other cast principles in the fine print; The Great Gatsby (2013 film) has 4 main stars in large print but re-includes those along with two-three others in the fine print. I say the intent of the MOS:FILM here is to use the list in the fine print, unless it is purposely misleading (for example, Cast Away is all Hanks, but I think it's rather silly to include the other two who have super-small bit parts in it for all purposes; however, as it currently is it aligns with MOS:FILM). --Masem (t) 22:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does met with the MOS:FILM and you know that, Masem. TheOldJacobite has been acting erratically when he keeps on reverting non-vandalizing edits regarding the cast on the infobox and him removing the actors names on that cast section, which is unnecessarily short despite a relatively large number of known actors on that movie. I don't know for how long, but his behavior has been causing some concern and is becoming a problem. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
There are two different issues in dispute here: which actors belong in the infobox (always the shorter of the two lists) and who belongs in the cast section. The dispute began because I removed names that were added to the cast list – minor characters who do not need to be listed, as has always been the rule. The dispute widened when the infobox list was reduced to just Willis. These are separate issues. Frankly, the full list from the opening and closing credits are a ridiculous source. We never list the full cast in the article, neither in the infobox nor in the cast list. Eddie Griffin might be a notable actor, but his role in this film is insignificant. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
TheOldJacobite, your behavior is causing problems among editors. You are not following some of the criteria seen in the film template about this film. You've been hostile towards some editors who have added some actor names in the cast section and again in the infobox, reverting their non-vandalizing edits and reverting warnings from other editors with your behavior on your talk page. You're one of the reasons this page is under full protection. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I am in agreement that the cast list in the body does not need to identify all 20-some people credited in the film. The last 10-some not in the opening credits should be taken as minor roles; if some 3rd party RS deemed the role notable, it should be included as a prose statement. (For example, it's not there now, but many sources have noted Elijah Wood's bit part in BTTF Part 2 as his first onscreen role). I know there can be difficulty in any film that once you get past the poster cast list, whom to include becomes difficult but that's where I'd hope editors use sound judgement and sources to decide what best to include; we certainly shouldn't try to include the full cast. --Masem (t) 23:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe my edits have been in keeping with WP's guidelines and Filmproject consensus on these matters. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
No, you're not acting in believe of some of the criteria of Wikipedia and you are not acting in the best interest in this article. This film has an ensemble cast and you are reverting those non-vandalizing edits with blatant hostility. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Assuming that TheOldJacobite wants to reduce the infobox to just Willis (their edits say one thing, their comments above another), I disagree with that, given that there are many other names on the poster. But I fully support their reduction of the cast list. We're not IMDB. Just because we have a blue-link for an actor doesn't mean we should include it if all they had was a few seconds of screentime and has no impact on the plot; it dilutes the value of the section. Of course, if a third-party noted the presence of that actor, then that can be included in prose. --Masem (t) 15:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as my "position" is concerned, I can see Beyond My Ken's point in reducing the cast list to just Willis, but I am willing to compromise on that if the consensus favors a long list. I am not willing to compromise on the cast section, though, for the reasons you give above. The names that have been added recently are not notable and do not belong in the article. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
How about the importance of some of these characters who are deemed not notable, including the ones who flew to the asteroid and the ones who survived the mission on that movie? You should have thought of that and you have taken that part to the extreme when you continuously removing them in the cast section when they weren't considered vandalism. Also, maybe if you hadn't followed Beyond My Ken's idea to reducing the cast list just to Willis in the infobox and left them be, this dispute would never have started and this page would have been under full protection. I hope you make things right in the infobox part like you said above. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I know you and I have had a similar discussion on Die Hard, BattleshipMan, and I still stand by the fact that just because we can name an extremely minor character, if they are not critical to the broad understanding of the plot, they shouldn't be listed. (For example, in this film, the flight crew of the Independence are window dressing/redshirts from a concise plot POV, and we dont need to address them at all, unless there are third party sources that note those factors.) There are other databases that we can link to that list out every credited role, but we're not an indiscriminate collection of informtion here. --Masem (t) 03:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record: Armageddon (1998 film) on-screen opening and closing credits

Screenshots of the entire opening credits may be accessed here. Also, there may be disagreement over the addition, earlier today, of the name Michael Clarke Duncan, an acting credit which does not appear above and can be seen only in the film's lengthy closing crawl. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, for the record, the names in the closing credits are not in the same order as in the opening credits and Michael Clarke Duncan is listed between Owen Wilson and Peter Stormare. Here are the names in the closing credits up to the point which includes all the names in the opening credits:

The closing credits may be accessed here. In contrast to the 19 names in the opening credits, the closing credits use 28 names to include all the cast members who are listed in the opening, with the last of the names, Eddie Griffin, listed 17th in the opening and 28th in the closing. The 91st and last name in the closing credits cast list is "Dog/Little Richard……Franky" followed by a double space and then "Narration by……Charlton Heston". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing credits are not reliable for billing purposes. They often show cast in order of appearance. Opening credits most often parallel advertising billing on posters and commercials. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Maybe if you hadn't started blanking those names in the infobox of that movie's article and leave them be, this dispute would've happened. Now mainly because of you and TheOldJacobite, this page is under full protection. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Bruce Willis is the only star of this film, per the billing. Period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No, Willis is the "draw" (why his name is big), but he's not the only star of the film. Everyone knows this is an ensemble cast led by Willis. The placement of one name on the poster can't dictate over reliable sources otherwise. --Masem (t) 03:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's totally incorrect to draw a distinction between "star" and "draw" =- just what do you think a star is, anyway? It's not like the Goddess of Hollywood taps you on the shoulder and now you're a star forevermore. A star is an actor who the producers and backers of the film feel is a name which will attract audience to see their film. That's the entirety of it. The same actor can be the star of one film, and a featured player in another - it all depends on the role, their function, and, most importantly, whether they have the box-office "oomph" to sell a film. Star in too many bombs, and you won't be a star for long -- but you can come back and be a star again if someone has faith in you and gives you that billing. These are the facts of commercial filmaking. A Wikipedia consensus can change how Wikipedia articles present "stars", but it cannot change the basic facts of the matter -- all it can do is make those articles less accurate, and misleading to our readers. If that's the purpose, then folks should continue to use the current inaccurate definition of "star". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The reason we use the billing line on the poster for the infobox is that it eliminates all personal opinions about who should be noted there for a film. We include everything the distributor includes. (It's why Spacey isn't listed in the box for Seven, for example, though to not mention him in the lede). Of course, we can use any large-font identified names in the lede and prose to know who to include first. With Willis big on this one, it makes sense to say "The film includes an ensemble cast led by Willis that includes..." to separate out that facet. However, also consider that a film may have many distribution posters - the billing block remains the same, but which actors are named in large print could be different. Stilling to the billing block eliminates those issues too. --Masem (t) 14:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with you about the draw otherwise we might as well be counting lines to determine who should be listed.2605:E000:9143:7000:C4F4:8A9:74:80B4 (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: this film infobox template states in the starring section Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus. Use the {{Plainlist}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list. You have been ignoring that and you are being disruptive about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The instruction sare incorrect, and are reflective of collective ignorance about how Hollywood billing works. Not only that, but the temp;ate instructions, which were created by a WikiPropject, are not mandatory, they have the same value as any other editing guideline, such as MOS. There are some of us who don't edit like robots, blindly following "rules" (that are not actually rules) instead of doing what's correct.
Now, please do not ping me again, I have no interest in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: This is my final ping to you. As of they are more who are against you on this, you will not edit that infobox again or they will be reverted. Consider this a notice. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Having WP:OWNERSHIP issues, I see. Any other articles you'd like to plant your flag on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Heartily agree with you, Beyond My Ken in all you have contributed to this whole strand. The info' box is not improved by the addition of the "ensemble" who are fully listed in the [far-too-brief] Lead and Cast sections.

As for you, Battleship Man, aggressive attitude, such as portrayed here this morning, will not be tolerated, so be warned! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 09:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC

Thank you for that, Gareth. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like it's an all-or-nothing type thing. The film has, apart from the ensemble cast, clearly three principal main characters it follows, Bruce Willis, Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck, I think those are the names that should be listed in the infobox. --Deathawk (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I think we should include Willis, Thornton, Tyler, Affleck, Patton and Buscemi in the infobox since they were mentioned in various trailers and such. I prefer the ones listed in the bulletin box below the posters, like you also seen Stormare and David on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic commentary hidden per WP:TPO. Swarm ♠ 20:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
File an SPI with evidence or withhold the personal attacks. Obviously the atmosphere here is already so toxic that we have a week of full protection. Let's not corrupt the talk page as well. Swarm ♠ 20:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As for you, BattleshipMan, are you also editing as 2605:E000:9143:7000:C4F4:8A9:74:80B4? Your editing styles and attitude are remarkably similar. It is bad form to edit both as an IP and a registered user. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

NOW WE GO AGAIN. ACCUSSATIONS OF BEING A SOCK PUPPET. WHEN WILL THIS STOP FROM YOU CONSPIRACY FOLKS?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Since you are in the accusation mode, you show a pattern of wasrring-like activity to the point that you are currently an invited party to a mediation. Correct. Or are you going to disregard that action and not respond as you did in a immediately previous ANI action as displayed in your history because you have blanked it from your talk page?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
All I did was ask a question – which you failed to answer, by the way. Your desperate, accusatory, blustering response only deepens my suspicion. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
NO! If you do not understand the language, you made an accusation? For what? To disrupt the discussion as you attempted on other edits I did on talk pages then blanked and was reprimanded for thwarting discussion on article content. You are a very contentious contributor. That is well proven by the history of your talk page and all that has been blanked.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
For the record User:TheOldJacobite, repeated accusations of sock puppetry without evidence may be considered a personal attack. So you need to gather that evidence and open a thread somewhere to sort it out, or you need to concentrate on content and not contributor. GMGtalk 18:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand that but if someone accusses me of something and it is their pattern of being so disruptive to a discussion then it should be brought out then and their for OldJaboite to understand this tactic will not be tolerated.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
... while you hide behind your IP address. You are hiding by not registering as a User. You demonstrate a lack of understanding how all of this works. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't hide and I do not change boxes or who is behind a film. I edit plots and make spelling corrections. That is well proven by my edit history. So please stop you're false and misdirected accussations like all the others that have been found to be inaccurate and foolish.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo: I made no accusation, much less "repeated accusations". I merely asked a question. Given the fact that this anonymous user is following me to other articles and forums, making accusations, I believe I have the right to question him. His appearance here, in support of BattleshipMan, is either a huge coincidence or an indication of something else. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It's an indication that I came across the discussion and contributed like any other editor. I buy a dvd and view it and then go on WP to see what is reflected in the plot. And I also tend to review the talk page to see what is going on? No coincidence; no conspiracy. No hiding.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The question has been asked, and an answer given. Other than that, WP:AGF is an expectation, not an option, and this is an article talk page, not ANI or SPI. GMGtalk 18:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • I suggest an RfC be opened on this matter, because it appears we're at an impasse. Swarm ♠ 20:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this discussion STILL ongoing? Clearly the info box should include more than just Willis.. The fact that he had a better agent at the time and negotiated better poster placement than Affleck, Tyler and Thornton doesnt mean he is the only star of the movie. Spanneraol (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Spanneraol: Yeah, it should be have the names seen in the bulletin box of the theatrical poster. TheOldJacobite and Gareth Griffith-Jones are clearly against it, based on Beyond My Ken's ideas. They are clearly biased about it and they are refusing to listen to reason. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Cast Marshall Teague as Colonel Davis 195.147.208.139 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I presume you mean Marshall R. Teague. He is not in the Lead's ensemble, so, "No". ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 09:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armageddon_(1998_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1154605986"