Talk:The Day After Tomorrow/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tropical-like or polar cyclone?

The superstorms refered to in the movie may actually be oversized polar cyclones. Naturally, most people have never herd of polar cyclones, so its easier to tell the public they're just huge out-of-place hurricanes (aka tropical cyclones).--159.90.80.231 14:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ice build-ups

I could be wrong on this one, but the ice building up on the NYC buildings would take years to complete, not a few seconds/minutes as shown in the movie. If this is true, someone could add it into the Science criticisms section or something. I just don't feel like editing the article, especially for something that I don't know is even scientifically true. Fiver2552 04:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably if there's enough humidity already stuck on the buildings, air as cold as the movie supposes it is could frost them up as shown. However, that's a heck-load of humidity we're talking about, almost like having the buildings perpetually under a waterfall.--200.44.7.102 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind the comparison in the article discussing the scientists' thoughts on this. The real problem with this is that the level of humitity is kind of unrealistic. Even with a slight temperature change (before everything "freezes") the humidity level would've been close to, if not, 0%. I'm not expert in the field, but I know that Hollywood relies heavily on what people are willing to believe. I watched 15 minutes of "An Inconvenient Truth" and I have to say, Al Gore did a much better job driving his point home to people. Scientific fact rather than incenuations is always better (like the example of the Wooly Mammoth in the film with the food in its mouth) - suggesting that an instant freeze had actually occurred. On that note: take something out of the oven and stick it in the freezer. Now tell me how long it takes to freeze - quite a while, right? Even at Zero degrees F, it still takes 5-10 minutes. Back to what I was saying, this 'suggestion' is what makes the film's so-called facts quite weak. Theatrically, it's cool. But so is Star Wars. Zchris87v 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah but theres a idfference between "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Day After Tomorrow" in that truth is based on facs and what should/will happen because of us, and "day after" is ment to entertain, so therfor it shouldn't honestly matter, no?--Jakezing (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Queens?

The wave that overtakes Manhattan comes from the east out of Queens, but the Atlantic Ocean is located south of Manhattan. The closest body of open ocean from Manhattan heading east is 120 miles away at the end of Long Island. How was this conclusion reached? If it's based soley on the direction the wave approached the Library then I think it's open for discussion. -Kingpin1055 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mammoth

Im interested to know why do they show the Mammoth in this movie?What was that supposed to mean?Extinction of species or something?

I thought it was kinda obvious, they used it as an example of something that was frozen so quickly it didn't even have a chance to save itself... foreshadowing events in the film. -Kingpin1055 16:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The tsunamis

Can they form so quikly,as shown in the movie?I thought thatevents are not connected each other,because megatsunamis,often occur if there is an earthquake.Or am I wrong?

Tsunami's are nothing more than huge displacements of water (and yes, these can happen very quickly). Thus, in theory, anything could create them. Usually the onlything strong enough, though, is an earthquake. Naturally, the conditions for an earthquake usually take years to build up, and it takes one of the particularly strong sequels to trigger a tusnami. --190.39.205.42 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So that means you cant have tsunamis with global warming...so suddenly?

You could have a tsunami if you, say, melt all Greenland's ice in the space of two minutes. I guess that would count as global warming too--you would need a lot of heat for that. Not that it will happen in the real world, but it would be in line with the crazy assumptions of this film. 76.211.242.171 05:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

LA Tornadoes

I recently posted that a large, destructive tornado outbreak as depicted in the film was highly improbable in that region of the country, but that edit was deleted, even though it stated that tornadoes can happen in that area. Can such large, violent outbreaks really occur in other parts of the country, or are they mostly limited to tornado alley? Orca1 9904 10:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Orca1_9904

• Sometimes......Pendo 4 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• • That was the best part of the movie, tornadoes ripping through LA.

• • • Last time I checked, LA does NOT get outbreaks like that. The storms are arent even that bad in the alley.

viþetheviþer 18:17, 12 MAy 2007 (CST)

4 to 7 tornadoes on the ground at the same time isn't fiction. In the Super Outbreak at one point,15 tornadoes were on the ground at the same time.

1st Movie Without The WTCs?

sorry people, but I watched this movie like 4 times and each time I was not able to see the WTCs. I know Gangs of new york had the WTCs at the end of the movie, anyways, did anybody else catch this? --BIG Tuna 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 2007

I don't think this is the first movie to show the absense of the World Trade Center... this came out in 2004 so I'm sure there's been a movie released between 2002 and 2003 that showed their absence.

I'm also pretty sure their appearance in Gangs of New York was digital... it's been discussed that they were kept in because the film was about the building of New York and America... but I could be wrong. -Kingpin1055 09:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did.I definitely agree that the WTC was not shown in this movie.But i still dont know whether this is the first movie that doesnt show the WTC,but I think there aremany others previously that were filmed in New York,I guess.

I think 25th Hour was the first. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurracy?

"During the same scene with the payphone, Sam is seen repeatedly ingesting water contaminated with sewage but does not become ill despite the fact that Laura nearly dies from an injury infected by the fouled water." I believe the acidity of the human stomach renders harmless many infectious agents which would infect an open wound. I am removing this line. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That, and the tidal wave/tsunami could have diluted the contaminated elements in the water. Really, I suspect it's just someone concentrating too hard on making everything work to 'reality'. -Kingpin1055 09:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; that would be like saying getting a mouthful of seawater would make you sick. Chances are it wouldn't, I know form experience. Getting that carp straight into your blood, though, that would be a different story.

One thing i noticed was that through out the film during the bits where they are in the ISS (international Space Station) they can see the whole of the northern hemisphere, but the ISS isnt that high up (that would be about as far as the moon away) Look at this wikipedia photo of how high the ISS is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/STS-122_ISS_Flyaround.jpg they would only be able to see one state or something. We could put this down as an inaccuracy i guess! --Tomorrownight23:33, 7 March 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.138.150 (talk)

The Whole Damned Shelf Is Breaking Off!

The article states that the ice shelf which broke off into the sea was from Greenland. In reality, it says it is the "Larsen B Ice Shelf", Antarctica on the film. I think it should be corrected. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Summer Time

The helicopters that are going to balmoray to get the Royal Family maeans that its summer time

Because the Royal Family spends it's summer at Balmoral? (yeah, I know... what kind of Brit am I that I don't know that kind of fact?) -Kingpin1055 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Global Warming"

The caption of the photo with Jack giving his speech from the start of the movie has global warming written as "global warming." Why the quotations around global warming? Was he not talking about it, therefor neglecting the need to have the quotations? Kaiser matias 04:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably because that were the exact words he was saying at the moment? Although I don't see what would be the sense of that--190.39.205.42 02:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wendys/Burger King

I don't know who it is, but whoever keeps editing it to read Wendy's instead of Burger King should rewatch the film, there's a half buried Burger King sign seen as Jack runs toward the roof hatch and we clearly see a near buried roof a small distance away when we see the sign, he doesn't run anywhere near the Wendy's restaurant.-Kingpin1055 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On my DVD it's a wendy's. probably because england doesn't have wendy's—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.130.37 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My DVD its a Wendys. "In addition to advertisements, Wendy’s is also featured in some shows for product placements. One of these shows is the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, where the workers were served with Wendy’s. Product placement was also made in movies like Click, The Day After Tomorrow and Garfield: The Movie. " Wendys web page (Bold added by me) --98.23.135.127 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Helicoptors going to Balmoral

This article says they are Mil-8 helicoptors?!? They are Merlin Helicopters and are in service with the RAF along with many other armed services.

Well then, if you haven't aldready done so then go correct the article. :) I thought it was kinda weird that they'd use helicopters in the film that weren't actually in service with the RAF. -Kingpin1055 11:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Todo

I fixed up the page - someone had incorrectly used ref tags and seriously broken the article. I don't know how to fix ref tags, so if they need to be re-added, please do so. Also the images need to be re-added. Kat, Queen of Typos 01:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot

I did some copy-editing, but being new at this, I'm not sure how well it went. Honestly, it still sounds somewhat wrong to me, but I don't really know how to make it better. Delta 20:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I did some MAJOR editing of this last week but some unregistered punk didn't like it & undid all the changes. This summary is WAY TOO LONG & needs to be sliced & diced down. (Sorry, didn't mean to sound too rhapsodic about it but this is a controversy w/many other film synopses around Wpedia.) Thoughts? Tommyt 16:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was unnecessarily long as well. I'm going to look back for a shorter version (or yours) and bring it back. Delta 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll beat these fanboy punks yet! (grinning emoticon) Tommyt 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Made some major revisions. Discuss? Delta (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Movie Physics: The Day After Tomorrow is not reliable. I did calculations and most of their numbers are incorrect. There should be a more reliable source.

Criticism from scientist at the beginning?

The article has this right in the beginning: "The film has been strongly criticized by scientists for its premise being physically impossible and 'absurd.'[1]" Is this really nessecary? This is a science fiction after all. There are tons of sci-fi films out there that are physically impossible and absurd. What makes this film so special that it's important to state this right in the beginning? In the discussion archive some have claimed this is not science fiction, but more like fantasy. However in the world of the movie the science is valid, I don't see anything fantasy like in it. Science fiction does not need to be scientifically possible in our world, only in the world of the movie.84.250.50.59 22:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Because this film attempts to use real-world science to explain stuff. You see, the sci-fi you are thinknig about uses random tech such as hyperdrives or force fields, as well as psionics to explain its stuff. This film is set on our Earth, here and now and uses "real-world" science, which is in fact nothing of the sort.211.30.132.2 08:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Using our understood science to extrapolate to other "science" is the entire defining point of science fiction. It differs from plain fiction in that it uses science in some plausible way. Hyperdrives are plausible given our understanding of spacetime. Force fields are plausible given the understanding of electromagnetic fields. Ringworld is based on our understanding that a rotating ring would have centrifugal force to act as "gravity" on the ring with some other plausible explanation for how such a ring could be constructed or built. Satellites were once science fiction, you know.

It's like you're calling The Time Machine not a work of science fiction because it's set "on our Earth, here and now [for 1895] and uses 'real-world' science" about time travel in that time is "just another dimension."

Sorry, but your argument is a joke and your definition of "science fiction" is completely contradictory to science fiction and m-w.com. Not to mention that "real-world science" is redundant with just "science" as science must, by definition, be real-world. The rest is called science fiction by everyone but, apparently, you. Cburnett (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference between this and most science fiction is that this particular film is blatantly political, and it uses the guise of modern-day climate science to justify itself. The scientists who made that statement were trying to distinguish fiction from reality, accurately calling the science portrayed in the movie "impossible and absurd." Given the film's strong ties to the politics of global warming and climate change, its drastically incorrect portrayal of the projected effects of climate change, and the extensive amount of coverage given to scientific criticism of the film later in the article, I see no weight or context reasons why this statement would be inappropriate for the lead. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sequel?

Is there gonna be a sequel of the day after tomorrow?Read more here: http://www.moviehole.net/news/4463.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised. That source is three years old at the time of writing this, and I haven't heard anything since. It would be quite hard to come up with a good sequel to a film like this.

Scene with the Helicopters

I was going to mention the fact that when the three helicopters go down over Scotland, the temperatures necessary to freeze it have no noticable effect on the soliders inside; they only freeze when they try and get out. I am aware that this might be considered original research, which is why I havne't included it as of now, but I think it is pretty obviously true- no ice forms on them, and I think if you were in conditions in which your entire chopper was being turned into ice, some of it would get on you. So what do you guys think?

I think the bigger question would be why a polar low on steroids would start pulling air down from the stratosphere which also magically failed to warm as it descended to the surface. Or how one could manage on foot to outrun such a phenomenon. Or why a wind-driven storm surge would freeze rather than returning to sea, and how a Russian oil tanker could make it halfway up 42nd street in only ten meters of water, somehow passing under Tudor City Plaza without shearing its entire bridge off. Or why the astronauts on the International Space Station were more fixated on how clean the atmosphere suddenly looked instead of being concerned with how anyone would ever be able to resupply them or bring them back down to the surface with Cape Canaveral suddenly and permanently being encased beneath sixteen meters of ice. But then, that's just me. </rant>

Anyway, to address your question: While your observation is true, it is simply one of many goofs which rears its head over the course of the film (-150° isn't even the accurate freezing temperature). It's not original research, it's simply not notable enough to add to the plot summary. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good observations (about astronauts onboard the ISS)!!! Besides that, one astronaut (cosmonaut?) said that he would send photos to Houston MCC and Korolyov's Center (Russian Mission Control Center). But Russian MCC is located MUCH closer to Polar circle than freezing scientific station in Scotland! And Russians were alive and working...Sea diver (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would like to remind this dead convo that theres other places for them to get a shuttle into space and even then there our other places to land a space shuttle.--Jakezing (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why people are so insistent on listing all the kinds of helicoptors in all the scenes? I don't get it and I don't understand why it's necessary in this article. Jabberwockgee (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The movie's main protagonist?

I've thought that Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) is the movie's main protagonist, but some say that Laura Chapman (Emmy Rossum) is the main protagonist because she is the intelligent heroine. Have you any idea on who's the true main protagonist of the movie? Starkiller88 08:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent heroine? Prrrfff. More like a damsel in distress. The protagonist is Jack because the story we see revolves around him, his explanations and his journey in the last third. Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Polar Lows Subsection

This subsection was devoted to discussion of an implausible-looking meteorological theory attributed to an individual better known as a drug chemist. The only citation given was to a self-written web page by this individual. If this theory warrants discussion at all, it belongs in the "Scientific evidence in support of rapid climate change" subsection. 151.199.17.192 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the cold air from the troposphere can be pulled down without it warming up. By the ideal gas law, by compressing the air to a higher pressure, you can warm up the gas or decrease the volume. So it not physically impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.243.111 (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible reference in South Park?

The phenomenon described in The Day After Tomorrow (global warming causing an ice age) is referenced in the South Park episode "Goobacks", when people are trying to think of ways to stop the future from happening. One suggests global warming to cause an ice age, to which the leader of the rally responds "How the hell is global warming going to cause an ice age?", which is in turn replied with something about "global warming bringing on a climate shift". The leader then explains it would take years for the change to occur and that it couldn't just happen all of a sudden, to which the guy replies that he "was just trying to be helpful". I don't think this is the most direct reference to the film, but the only one with the (quite absurd) idea that global warming can cause the world to freeze over in minutes has only really been put forth in mainstream culture through this movie - wonder why... Anyway, I don't know if it's worth mentioning this or not. Zchris87v 03:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been parodied many times on South Park. A more direct example is the episode Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article

Lowe, T. et al. 2006. “Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change.” Public Understanding of Science 15:435.

unfortunately i really dont have time!

-MethoxyRoxy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.85.116.126 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Temperature

Someone who's seen the movie should fix the temperature reference in the "Synopsis" section. 150F/66C is certainly not "extremely cold". I'm guessing it should be either -150F (-101C) or -66C (-87F), but I don't know which. Habfan29 (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cold = 150 degrees F?

It says, "...extremely cold temperature (150°F....)" Is this a vandal attack? C Teng (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Habfan just mentioned it. It has to be fixed. C Teng (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision

I'm not sure what trigger-happy movie junkie wrote this page, but perhaps they could have noted that 'Plot' and 'Synopsis' is basically the same thing. Due to this duality, and the fact that a full plot description is not necessary for movie articles, I am removing the Plot section. 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• You can't just wholesale remove a full plot summary like that without consensus, and WP:PLOT does not require that it be removed. Cut it back if you will but delete the whole thing again and I'll just keep putting it back until consensus is reached.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Edit - I've removed the synopsis, but the plot stays. Trim it if you will. I've also moved this section to the end. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

England, mankind, and Manchester United

It is extremely unlikely that a group of Scots in a Scottish lab who were about to die would make this toast. Most Scots don't actually hate the English but they wouldn't be thinking about them fondly on their deathbeds. They don't generally follow English Premier League soccer clubs either (they have their own football leagues). I suspect the line was written by an American scriptwriter who made the common American error of confusing England and Britain. I'm English BTW. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One could probably write a second article solely on the continuity and scientific errors in this thriller/propaganda film. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The actor's clearly make many references to England, have English and not Scottish accents and one makes a point he is from England.--72.220.50.9 (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Another possible explanation for this howler may be that the 'Hedland Climate Research Center' was originally going to be the UK Met Office Hadley Centre which is located in Exeter, England. The location may have been moved to Scotland to tie in with the Balmoral storyline, or the Met Office may simply have refused permission to use the Hadley Centre name. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I live in Glasgow and I assure you English football is still well followed here, with a large number of non-Old Firm diehards also supporting an English team as well. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful of your errors on scotland my freind.--Jakezing (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Main protagonist?

How is Emmy Rossum's character the protagonist of the film? Yes she was a major role, but Jake and especially Quaid had a much bigger role than she had.

Wag84 (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Arnold Federbush

I wonder if the novel "Ice!" by Arnold Federbush played any role in the making of this flick, given the similarity in premise (global warming creates instantaneous ice age amid a New York City setting). Just curious. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Erros in the film" section

The section "Erros in the film" seems extremely unencyclopedic to me. I suggest it to be removed, per WP:TRIVIA. If nobody objects, I'll do it myself. Victor Lopes (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As no one objects, I'm removing the section now. Victor Lopes (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)