Talk:The Day After Tomorrow

message: There is absolutely nothing between drilling for the ice samples and the UN conference. Could we maybe get some details about how we got from there to here in the movie? It would be nice to those who haven't actually seen it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually the sequence: drilling in Antarctica-conference in New Delhi.  There's nothing inbetween.  It actually works in the movie.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. The way its worded here makes its sound like there was...IDK, teleportation or something involved. They (movie filming folks) really ought to think about better transitioning for this sort of thing. At any rate, thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I think The Day After Tomorrow is a 2004 American science-fiction film that depicts the catastrophic effects of global warming in a series of extreme weather event... is misleading. That definitely implies that the film, with some degree of realism, actually does depicts the catastrophic effects of global warming. But the film does no such thing; it needs to be stated that the effects described are unrealistic William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with you, that statement requires a source.  Even the "criticism" section doesn't support "completely unrealistically" ....  I think I "unrealistically" could be considered supported.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this covered by the fact that the movie is considered science-fiction? Doniago (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

text: After looking at the current lead, I recommend the phrasing be removed entirely until there's consensus. Peacock followed by CN is pretty garish-looking and detracts from the article IMO. Doniago (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, I'll take it out.  I expect WMC to restore it, though.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why doesn't that depicts the catastrophic effects of require a source then? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that's apparently simply by looking at the poster, but if you feel it should be cited feel free to request a citation or remove it. Doniago (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Why resurrect a thread that's over ten years old just to say this, though? DonIago (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrealistic 

message: "but find Sam's group alive after being rescued by Black Hawk helicopters" -- I just saw the film two days ago, and I am almost certain this is wrong:  The father finds the son and companions in the library.  Then the father, his companion and the people from the library start walking (probably after a telephone call -- I can't remember) and are soon(?) picked up by a helicopter. Kdammers (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of film seems to be incorrectly described. 

message: The bibliography should also include " The HAB Theory" written by Allan W. Eckert.  The book depicts an earth axis shift catyclism similar to that in "Day After".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.97.63 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if that were accurate, it shouldn't be in the article unless some reliable source noticed it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Day After Tomorrow & The HAB Theory  

message: Air is not a good conductor of heat. It seems impossible that things will freeze instantly. Heat moves very ver slowly. It is shown in the movie that a cold wave comes from the sky towerds ground freezing things instantly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.62.2 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole movie is science-fiction, so if we start listing and citing sources for why and how each unrealistic and/or inaccurate scene there is in the movie, we'll be here a very, very long time. So long, in fact, that by the time we are finished, climate change may very well be irreversible. Much more piratical to just cite climate scientists who have pointed out how flawed the science in the movie is. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

text: We summarize the plot of the movie. We may cite sources that specifically address the movie. We may not cite sources that do not specifically discuss the movie to address whether or not elements of the movie are plausible. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instant freezing - Bad Science ? 

message: From the tag: I am fine with a criticism section but not so with how this is presented. Is there for example any constructive criticism or defense to some of the points made here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The climate-change denialism with which this article has been infested is present in this section as written, which has been largely cherry-picked from the USA Today source. After I copyedit it according to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, I'll remove the tag. Miniapolis 17:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue tag added

message: Please review this addition to the plot summary, which takes it well over WP:FILMPLOT's recommendation of 700 words maximum, and advise if you feel that this is an improvement to the article. DonIago (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot expansion