How do some blockbuster disaster movies stack up against real science?
Let's explore some iconic apocalypse films and rate which ones get close to plausible science and which ones veer into pure fantasy.
The scientifically plausible, kind of…
Deep Impact (1998)
Deep Impact starring Robert Duvall, Téa Leoni, Elijah Wood, Vanessa Redgrave, Maximilian Schell, and Morgan Freeman
Plot: A comet is on a collision course with Earth, threatening mass extinction.
Science Check: This one gets a lot right. Comets (icy, rocky bodies from the outer solar system) could indeed strike Earth, as they have in the past (think of the Chicxulub impact that wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago — although this is widely believed to have been caused by an asteroid not a comet).
The film's depiction of a global effort to deflect the comet with nuclear weapons aligns with real-world concepts like NASA's planetary defence strategies, including the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission, which successfully altered an asteroid's orbit in 2022.
Where it stretches plausibility is in the timeline, detecting a comet just months before impact is unlikely with today's tech, which can spot near-Earth objects years in advance. Still, the tsunami-causing aftermath of a smaller fragment hitting the Atlantic? That's a chillingly realistic touch.
Accuracy Rating: 7/10. Nails comet impacts and deflection but stretches the detection timeline.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
The Day After Tomorrow starring Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Sela Ward, Emmy Rossum, and Ian Holm
Plot: Climate change triggers a sudden ice age, with superstorms and flash-freezing chaos.
Science Check: This film takes a kernel of truth and runs wild with it. The idea of a disrupted Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a key ocean current that regulates global climate, has basis in science. Studies suggest that melting polar ice from climate warming have weakened this system, and under high emissions scenarios it could collapse, which would cool Europe and the planet overall; however, scientists aren't sure about the timing this could happen — it's a hot (or cold) topic.
But the movie's hyper-accelerated timeline (days instead of decades) and dramatic effects, like tornadoes shredding Los Angeles or New York freezing solid in hours, are pure Hollywood. Real climate shifts are gradual, not instant, and liquid nitrogen-style freezing of humans? Thermodynamically absurd.
Accuracy Rating: 4/10. AMOC disruption is real, but the rest is cinematic craic.
Interstellar (2014)
Anne Hathaway as Amelia in Interstellar. Picture: Warner Bros/Paramount/Melinda Sue Gordon
Plot: Earth becomes uninhabitable due to crop failures and dust storms, prompting a search for a new home via a wormhole.
Science Check: Interstellar earns points for ambition. The film consulted physicist Kip Thorne, ensuring its wormhole and black hole visuals (like Gargantua's accretion disk) were grounded in relativity theory. Crop blight wiping out food supplies is a plausible threat, fungal pathogens and climate change do endanger global agriculture.
However, the idea of Earth becoming a dust-choked wasteland in mere decades is exaggerated; such a collapse would likely take centuries.
The wormhole? Theoretically possible, but we've no evidence they exist or could be navigated.
Accuracy Rating: 7/10. Blight and dust are credible, but the speed and wormhole travel are speculative.
The scientifically absurd
Armageddon (1998)
Armageddon with Bruce Willis
Plot: A Texas-sized asteroid threatens Earth, and oil drillers are sent to nuke it from the inside.
Science Check: Armageddon is a rollercoaster of nonsense. An asteroid that big (1,000 km wide) would obliterate Earth on impact, no drilling required. Splitting it with a nuke wouldn't work either; you'd need energy far exceeding all human-made explosives combined, and the fragments would still rain down catastrophically.
Plus, training drillers to be astronauts in days? NASA would sooner train astronauts to drill. It's a thrilling ride, but it's about as scientific as a cartoon.
Accuracy Rating: 1/10. Gets the asteroid threat vaguely right but flunks physics and logistics.
2012 (2009)
2012 starring John Cusack, Thandiwe Newton, Danny Glover, and Woody Harrelson
Plot: Neutrinos from a solar flare heat Earth's core, causing continents to shift and mega-tsunamis to ensue.
Science Check: This one's a doomsday fever dream. Neutrinos, near-massless particles that pass through matter, are incapable of heating Earth's core. Science says no, but the film says 'yes, and here's tsunamis'.
The idea of 'solar flares' triggering pole shifts or crust displacement is geological gibberish, plate tectonics don't work that way, and shifts take millions of years, not hours.
The arks saving humanity are a nice touch, but the science here is a Mayan prophecy-level stretch.
Accuracy Rating: 0/10 —Pure fantasy with zero scientific grounding.
The Core (2003)
The Core: In a last-ditch effort to restart the planet's failing magnetic field, scientists and astronauts must set off a nuclear device at the center of the Earth. 2003 film starring Aaron Eckhart, Hilary Swank, and Stanley Tucci
Plot: Earth's core mysteriously stops spinning, so a team drills down to detonate nukes and restart it.
Science Check: Where to begin? The core stopping would take an incomprehensible force (far beyond anything natural) and would disrupt Earth's magnetic field gradually, not instantly. Drilling to the core is impossible with current tech; the deepest hole ever (Kola Superdeep Borehole) reached just 12 kilometres, versus the 2,900 kilometres to the outer core.
And nukes restarting it? Angular momentum doesn't work like a car engine. This film's a wild sci-fi romp, not a science lesson. Although there is a factually correct documentary by the same name... and I know a lecturer who accidentally played the wrong core movie to their university class. They shall remain anonymous.
Accuracy Rating: 0/10. A wild sci-fi ride with no scientific legs.
Why we love the apocalypse anyway
Whether they nail the science or fling it out the window, end-of-the-world films tap into our primal fears and hopes. Films such as Deep Impact and Interstellar remind us of real threats, asteroids, climate change, resource depletion, while offering heroic solutions. Meanwhile, Armageddon and 2012 lean into absurdity, prioritising explosions over equations.
Scientifically accurate or not, they all ask: How would we face the end?
And that's a question worth pondering, even if the neutrinos stay harmless and the core keeps spinning. So, next time you're watching an apocalyptic blockbuster, enjoy the ride and just don't bet on it being a documentary.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
4 hours ago
- Irish Independent
‘King of the Hill' 2025 review: New season proves this animated gem is one 90s TV show actually worth reviving
Ideally, this and the axing in January of Paramount's mediocre Frasier should be the final nails in the coffin of the 90s TV revival craze. All that being said, welcome back King of the Hill (Disney+, streaming now). It's great to see you again after all this time, and looking great too. The animated sitcom created by Mike Judge (Beavis and Butt-head) and Greg Daniels (The Simpsons, The Office, Parks and Recreation) originally ran from 1997 to 2009 and was a cult favourite. Near the end, despite good ratings, its original broadcaster, Fox, seemed to lose interest and dumped the final four episodes into syndication. Set in the fictional Texas city of Arlen, King of the Hill focused on mild-mannered beer- and football-loving propane salesman Hank Hill (voiced by Judge), his wife Peggy (Kathy Najimy) – a substitute teacher who's bursting with confidence, yet sometimes deficient in the self-awareness department – their 12-year-old son and only child Bobby (Pamela Adlon), who shares none of his father's interests, along with a large cast of friends, neighbours and incidental characters. Even when it started, King of the Hill was a bit of an outlier. It didn't have the glorious puerility of Beavis and Butt-head, the surreal satire of The Simpsons or the politically engaged, boundary-smashing, near-the-knuckle outrageousness of South Park. If you had to sum it up in a few words, they would be warm, big-hearted and gentle – although not in the way 'gentle' is often used as code for 'not very funny'. King of the Hill was always very funny. The humour came from the small things, the mundane details and minor frustrations of everyday life. It also paddled against TV comedy's political tide. Hank was – and still is in the new episodes – a Republican, but he's also a member of a vanishing species: the moderate conservative who prefers to consider other viewpoints rather than condemn them. The current fractious political climate is the ideal time to bring King of the Hill back to television, and Judge, Daniels and new showrunner Saladin Patterson (The Wonder Years) handle the return seamlessly. ADVERTISEMENT The new season starts with Hank and Peggy returning to Arlen after several years in Saudi Arabia – or 'Saw-die Arabia', as Peggy says it. As their plane descends, Hank is in the toilet, struggling to empty his bladder, while a disgruntled queue forms at the door. Peggy loudly announces to the other passengers that her husband has a narrow urethra. 'Doctors say he now has the urethra of a seven-year-old,' she booms. 'Every year, that skinny little tube just shrinks and shrinks.' 'Don't share that, Peggy!' wails Hank from the other side of the door. He's flummoxed by taxi apps, all-gender toilets, hybrid cars, bicycle lanes Hank is bewildered at how things have changed while they've been away. 'Are we still in Amsterdam?' he wonders, marvelling at all the trendy stores and eateries that have popped up all over Arlen. 'What kind of food is poke?' He's flummoxed by taxi apps, all-gender toilets, hybrid cars, bicycle lanes. A different comedy might have gone down the route of having Hank rail angrily against modern life. Instead, he handles everything in his uniquely Hank way: initial puzzlement followed by a kind of 'Oh, well' shrug of acceptance. Unlike other animated sitcoms, King of the Hill marks the passage of time. Twelve-year-old Bobby is now 21-year-old Bobby, the part-owner and chef of a restaurant offering 'a traditional Japanese barbecue with a fusion of flavours and techniques from the German traditions of the Texas Hill Country'. Quite a mouthful. King of the Hill rings the changes in the political climate without making your ears bleed. Trump is never mentioned. Everything is addressed obliquely, using Hank's neighbour Dale Gribble (Toby Huss). Always a right-winger, Dale seems to have gone full wingnut. He was elected mayor, but served for just 36 hours after refusing to accept his own victory: 'I was an election-election denier.' If only the compassion of King of the Hill was to be found on Capitol Hill. Rating: Four stars
The Irish Sun
2 days ago
- The Irish Sun
Nasa's futuristic observatory could finally find ALIENS as it hunts for hidden habitable worlds, say experts
NASA is plotting a new mission that could be the one to finally uncover alien life in the universe. Or, it may uncover a darker fact: that we humans are completely alone, on the unique oasis we call Earth. Advertisement 6 Planet K2-18b, which astronomers believe has water in its atmosphere, orbits within the habitable zone of a distant star Credit: ESA/UCL 6 Scientists will be looking for signs of oxygen, ozone and methane in a planet's atmosphere, as these are the chemicals that suggest there might be life on the surface Credit: NASA The ambitious project, slated to arrive sometime in the 2040s, will require technologies that are yet to be developed and demonstrated. Fortunately, plans for those technologies are underway as part of an international effort. The Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) will be tasked with scouting out some of the nearly 6,000 exoplanets that have been discovered since the early 1990s. 'If we're going to find evidence of alien life beyond our solar system in our lifetime, the Habitable Worlds Observatory represents our best opportunity," Dr Caroline Harper, head of space science at the UK Space Agency, told The Sun. Advertisement READ MORE ON SPACE SKY HIGH I lost my leg in tragic accident & now I'm set to make space history for Britain "This groundbreaking mission could finally answer one of humanity's most profound questions: are we alone in the universe?" Dr Shyam Balaji, a theoretical physicist at King's College London, said that finding a planet with a stable atmosphere and potential signs of life would be "a turning point". "It would reshape how we see our place in the cosmos, and even short of detecting life," he said. "Simply confirming that other habitable worlds exist would profoundly change our understanding of the universe and of our own planet's uniqueness." The HWO will look for chemical patterns - what scientists call biosignatures - around Earth-sized planets that lie within the habitable zones of nearby stars. Advertisement Scientists will be looking for signs of oxygen, ozone and methane in a planet's atmosphere, as these are the chemicals that suggest there might be alien life on the surface. The relative abundance of these three molecules in Earth's atmosphere, for example, cannot be explained by any non-biological processes. Best-ever sign of ALIEN life found on distant planet as scientists '99.7% sure of astounding biological activity signal' "With the Habitable Worlds Observatory, we'll be able to examine their atmospheres directly, looking for chemical patterns like oxygen and methane coexisting that are difficult to explain without biology," Dr Balaji explained. "That wouldn't be absolute proof of life, but it would be the strongest evidence we've had yet." Advertisement The HWO will not only try to find signs of life on distant worlds, but it will even take photos of them. It should be able to beam back pictures of planets human astronauts could only dream of laying their eyes on. While thousands of exoplanets have been detected, only a handful have been directly photographed. Instead, we often rely on painted impressions of distant worlds - where artists are guided by scientists as to what the data says a planet might look like. Advertisement 6 An artist's impression of Kepler-186f, an Earth-size planet orbiting a distant star Credit: NASA Ames/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle Current plans indicate that HWO - a large spacecraft similar to Hubble or Webb space telescopes - should be able to image a planet that is 10billion times fainter than its host star. Scientists also believe that HWO will also be able to detect Earth-like moons of giant extrasolar planets, and spot eclipses of giant planets and their lunar satellites. Funding pressures are real. And such ambitious missions are always vulnerable to delays. Dr Shyam Balaji, a theoretical physicist at King's College London The idea for HWO was first pitched some 15 years ago, and has since snowballed into becoming "the first specifically engineered to identify habitable, Earth-like planets… and examine them for evidence of life," according to Nasa. Advertisement By the time project jumps from paper into real-life, tangible tech, the HWO - or the core parts of the idea, at least - will be roughly 50 years old. That's if the mission survives President Donald Trump's proposed cuts to Nasa, in which the US space agency is forecast to lose nearly 20 per cent of its workforce. But experts are cautiously hopeful that HWO will make it off the ground. "Funding pressures are real," said Dr Balaji. "And such ambitious missions are always vulnerable to delays." Advertisement "But the scientific case is compelling and public interest is high," he added. "So I think it has a good chance of moving forward even if the schedule slips." Deputy executive director of the Royal Astronomical Society, Dr Robert Massey, said: "I think the value of it is so big, that it's just a really exciting mission. "I don't want to sit there and say this should be funded over something else, because that's the thing we have to avoid doing. But if it goes ahead, it will be an incredibly exciting project." Advertisement 6 This artists impression shows a view of the surface of the planet Proxima Centauri b Credit: Getty While Earth is the only planet known to host life, scientists estimate there could be hundreds of millions of potentially habitable worlds in our galaxy, the Milky Way. These worlds are very far away from Earth - with the closest potentially habitable world, Proxima Centauri b, located 4.2 light-years away. To spot these planets, even through the glare of their nearest star, HWO will need some next-generation instruments on board. Advertisement Of the many instruments that HWO will have installed, it will need a tool to block out scattered light. "If you put your thumb up in front of the sun, you can sort of look around it. The problem you have is that we've got an atmosphere so all the sunlight scatters," Dr Massey explained. "But if you do that in space, block out the light of the star, there's no atmosphere. "If you get the size of that right, then you could see planets in orbit around that star - and actually study them and look for the chemistry of their atmosphere." Advertisement 6 Of the many instruments that HWO will have installed, it will need a tool to block out scattered light Credit: NASA Like Hubble and Webb, HWO will have a large mirror to help with detecting and imaging distant worlds. The primary mirror will be at least six metres in diameter, so it needs to be segmented one way or another. No decisions have yet been made on the detailed design of either mirror, telescope or spacecraft. Advertisement Whether we find life or not, the implications will be transformational - not just for space science, but for our understanding of humanity's place in the universe. Dr Caroline Harper, head of space science at the UK Space Agency Though HWO is expected to be pretty large - and will require a powerful rocket like Nasa's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Starship or Blue Origin's New Glenn to launch it into space. The European Space Agency (ESA) and UK Space Agency (UKSA) are interested in becoming partners in the project, just like they are on the Webb telescope. Speaking at Nasa's Habitable Worlds Observatory conference in Washington, DC, earlier this week, Dr Harper promoted the UK's ambition to lead an instrument on the mission. "The UK has developed exceptional expertise in exoplanet science and cutting-edge instrumentation," she said. Advertisement "We now have the chance to build on these strengths and take part in what could be the most significant scientific discovery in human history. "Whether we find life or not, the implications will be transformational - not just for space science, but for our understanding of humanity's place in the universe.' 6 Rocky planet Earth-like planet, Proxima Centauri b Credit: Getty All you need to know about planets in our solar system Our solar system is made up of nine planets with Earth the third closest to the Sun. But each planet has its own quirks, so find out more about them all... How old is Earth? Plus other facts on our planet How many moons does Mercury have? What colour is Venus? How far away is Mars to Earth? And other facts on the red planet How big is Jupiter? How many moons does Saturn have? Does Uranus have rings? How many moons does Neptune have? How big is Pluto? How hot is the Sun?
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
South Park isn't letting go of Donald Trump's hambone any time soon
'I don't know what more we could possibly say about Trump ,' Trey Parker, one of the creators of South Park, told Vanity Fair shortly before the US presidential election of 2024. The magazine took this to mean the series was 'about done with satirising the Republican candidate'. If that was the team's intention, then intervening events have brought about a change in strategy. The candidate became president again. The president flailed like a maniac. Some of the metaphorical broken crockery belonged to South Park's corporate master. The Comedy Central satire has rarely been so explicit in its attacks on an individual as it was on Trump in the first episode of the 27th season. Broadcast on July 23rd, Sermon on the 'Mount – a reference to both its guest star Jesus Christ and Paramount, the cable channel's parent company – began with a characteristic double-edged dig at Trump's war on the liberal media. READ MORE Eric Cartman, perennially bigoted id-monster, is outraged that the administration has cancelled his favourite show on National Public Radio. We are encouraged to believe South Park's creators are equally appalled at this curtailment of cultural expression, but most of the laughs come from Cartman, hitherto a hate listener, ranting about the unintentionally hilarious enemies he will no longer get to snort at. The show is, he explains, 'where all the liberals bitch and moan about stuff'. Jesus turns up to evangelise at South Park Elementary. The town's residents wonder if that is strictly constitutional. 'I didn't want to come back,' the risen Lord eventually mutters fearfully to assembled multitudes. 'But I had to because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount.' This references Trump's recent suit against Paramount over an episode of the news show 60 Minutes, broadcast on the conglomerate's CBS network, and allows wider connection to be made with capitulations to the president's legal Panzerkorps elsewhere in the media. [ Maureen Dowd: CBS caving to Trump is sickening. At least South Park will still hold people accountable Opens in new window ] All of that was typically bold – The Simpsons' erstwhile digs at its own Fox network were generally more playful – but it was the depiction of Trump himself that really got media-watchers gasping. Like their version of Saddam Hussein, he is seen cosying up to a giant, oddly sensitive Satan, who expresses himself unimpressed by the imperial crown jewels. 'I can't even see anything, it's so small,' the Lord of the Flies says of Trump's penis. At the close, now bespectacled and talkative, the first member dangles from a hyperrealistic, AI-generated version of the naked Trump. How do we know this attack struck home? Because the White House said it didn't. 'This show hasn't been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention,' a hopelessly needy White House statement whined. 'No fourth-rate show can derail President Trump's hot streak.' Asked, at the Comic-Con event in San Diego, what he made of the response, Parker, sitting beside his collaborator Matt Stone, did not break a smile before snapping: 'We're terribly sorry.' The reply needed no ironic intonation to confirm its insincerity. And they are not finished. There was no episode this week, but a teaser trailer for next Wednesday's outing has Trump feeling up Satan's leg at a public event. South Park isn't loosening its jaws from this hambone. Why does this matter more than the countless volleys that have come Trump's way over the past decade? A glance (just a glance, I promise) at the increasingly feeble Saturday Night Live gives a few clues. The sheer flaccidity of the sketch show's satire is one factor. Another is that sense of us knowing which wet-liberal safe house the SNL team emerge from each miserably predictable weekend. These skits are not intended to irritate the Maga base. They are there to comfort those already certain of their own cosy opposition. Remember the execrable 'cold open' that had a white-clad Hillary Clinton – in the supportive form of Kate McKinnon – warble Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah to a blubbing audience straight after the real Hillary lost to Trump? Such obsequiousness towards a politician (any politician) would be inconceivable on South Park. Over the past 28 years Stone and Parker have made a virtue of wrong-footing those who think they have the team's politics nailed down. Way back in 2005, scores of leftish critics raged that Team America: World Police, their now-classic 'Supercrappymation' feature, spent as much time slagging off liberal celebrities as attacking the administration. 'People assumed that Trey and I were going to devote every frame to bringing down George Bush,' Stone, laughing, told me at the time. One side has never forgiven them. The other may not forget their current jihad against Trump. But that uncertain political territory is the best place for satirists to pitch base camp. Nobody should feel safe. They could be after your penis next.
