Talk:The Day After Tomorrow/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Inspiration

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Shameless Plugs

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Making the article more PC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: 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)
thread_title: The African woman

message: The commentary is major POV and contains weasel words.  24.250.136.236 09:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: That works. :) --^BuGs^ 17:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Scientific Analysis POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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#Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation. 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Splitsection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible error in article... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Heat Burst 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Freighter

message: 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)
thread_title: First Aid Kit

message: 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)
thread_title: Mess