This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Science Fiction This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

• in the movie, it show 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 were it actually hit, 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]

Take your pick. In sequence, there are some between the 6th and 7th, but they are so closeup and you do not get to see it in it's entirety. The ones I tried to take are the ones showing the entire thing.

Cheers! -therearenospoons 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

The movie is corny and trying too hard to be funny. The plot is stupid and typical hollywood which shouts "The US saves the world again". The screen writer should be ashamed of themselves as they portray other cultures with their ignorant perception of what they would be like. (i.e. Shanghai is represented by poor families floating on wooden rafts eating rice) Would you bloody americans like to see Cowboys eating macdonalds as a symbol for america? No, you want beach boys, apple pie and the 67 mustang. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.214.156.18 (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

alrighty then User:Saget53 10:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alright stfu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.79.196.46 (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I know I'm coming a bit late to this discussion but I agree: it is one of the worst films ever made, if not THE worst popular film of the 90s. Which sorta validates (look out, potential ego trip coming...) the idea that the summary is too long & gets too bloated because every fanboy out there wants to add a myriad of details to make the summary seem more dramatic. Plus, the grammar is getting awful. Is there a way to recommend this one for the "only registered users may make changes" tag? Tommyt 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no, that's only for vandalism. But by all means take a hatchet to the plot summary. Oh, and why the hell is there a list of deaths?! They should be integrated into the synopsis. Cop 633 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty bad, all right, but my main objection is the pathetic "science" misused in the movie. And, apparently, having just one "can't follow the rules rebel" wasn't enough, they needed at least a dozen of them, as NASA could never figure out how to drill a hole without them. StuRat 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]