Talk:10.5 (miniseries)

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal 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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Based on a book?

I've not seen the movie, but the plot description sounds a lot like Richter 10 by Arthur C. Clarke & Mike McQuay, even down to the sealing of faults with nuclear bombs. Other connections seem to be the GG Bridge being destroyed, predicting earthquakes, and other things. Anyone have any idea if the writers of the TV movie used the book, or if it was just a big coincidence? --StarkRG 01:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This also sounds like the book [http://www.amazon.com/8-4-Peter-Hernon/dp/0399144005 8.4]. That book was set on the New Madrid Fault Zone near the Mississippi River, but the plot sounds similar. I note that Amazon says this of 8.4: "miniseries rights to NBC".--207.171.180.101 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a reliable source actually says so, we can not guess on possible sources. As of now, the film itself makes no such claim nor does any other RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom

This film and it's sequel are noted for their 'zoom' camera effects, which many response pages have noted for causing excessive disruption of concentration. Just thought we might want to add that. (207.81.164.238 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. When I watched it recently on TV the heavy and hectic zooming and camera unsteadyness caused me headaches and generally makes the movie unwatchable, at least under some concentration. Somebody wanna add? 217.190.4.69 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

The title states this as a TV series yet the body calls it a film, shouldn't one of these be changed?--Daniel Berwick

Yes, that needs to be fixed and now has been. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Rushmore

The article says that Mt Rushmore is one of the landmarks destroyed? I don't remember this. --Mjrmtg (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember that scene, but I don't have the DVD to double check it against. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This reference was erroneous and has been removed. The Mt. Rushmore scene was in 10.5: Apocalypse when the North American continent began to split in two. In the TV series this event was tied to the Western Interior Seaway which connected the Gulf of Mexico to either or both the Arctic Ocean and/or the Hudson Bay depending upon the time period (during the Cretaceous) as the seaway flooded two continental divides. RUOdyssey (talk) 26:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you are right. Forgot to come back and answer this, but saw it in the movie this weekend. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irritating factors

I do not understand the appeal to the producers of this movie of using hand-held cameras instead of using dollies. Also, why is it that the crack in the ground follows the train tracks, and stops as soon as it has caught up to the front of the train? (The same gimmick happened in Superman when the crack stopped as soon as it reached Lois Lane's car. GBC (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While these cheap effects and amazingly lucky/far-fetched feats of nature can be irritating to any movie buff, their sum laughableness is what makes made-for-TV science-fiction movies "awesomely bad" in my humble opinion. Still, I don't think this fact warrants the creation of a list. (That list could easily be double the length of the plot!) Ruodyssey (talk • contribs) 06:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly Bad Science

Is it appropriate to add a section pointing out the laughable science in this movie. For example, the crack opens up to let the ocean in as far as Barstow. No matter how deep the crack is, the water level cannot reach Barstow since it is 2100 feet above sea level. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. If reliable sources discuss it, it might be useful as part of the reception section, but a specific section for just that would not be appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did as you suggested and cited a relible source. If a movie is made that is not clearly science-fiction (say, The Day After Tomorrow), but really has a veneer of plausibility (including the hand-held camera documentary-like look), then how good the science is should be a valid topic for a small section. To call this section trivial is wrong. How many people actually believe that some of these scenarios are possible? Quite a few. I'm not going to try to restore it, but I think you are off base here. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a movie, a piece of fiction, period. The Day After Tomorrow isn't science-fiction, its a disaster film, same as this one is. The use of a hand-held camera does not make it a "documentary". The plausibility of the film is not a valid topic, anymore than it would be in Twister, Category 6: Day of Destruction, or even Star Trek (which is sci-fi, but has a "veneer of plausibility" to some people). The section you made was primarily trivial information. As already noted, a single sentence or two as part of a wider reception section is fine, a point by point list, is excessive and gives undue weight to an unimportant point. Fiction = not real. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I get the point that since the movie is fiction, its plausibility is not a valid topic for the article. I wonder, however, why it is appropriate for Wikipedia articles about historically-based movies to have a section comparing the movie to the history behind it (and I see these all the time)? If it is valid to compare the history behind a movie to the history portrayed in a movie, then whey is it not appropriate to comepare the science behind a movie to the science in the movie? It seems pretty analagous to me.

What I really object to, I guess, is your characterization of the section I added as "trivial". The information there is central to the premise of the movie. I wasn't talking about peripheral points. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the times, those sections aren't appropriate either, but not all film articles are watched by experienced editors (nor are most of good quality by our classification standards). If you check the WP:MOSFILM, you'll not it doesn't even mention such sections. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did a little Wiki-research on this idea of laughable/discreditable sci-fi snafus. As per the guidelines on WP:MOSFILM under "Critics," "Reliable sources should be used to determine how the film was received. For films, sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though *notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited.*" At first you might think, "Ah ha!" but professional criticisms are stacked on an already shaky foundation of science fiction. I got very bored an perused the List_of_science_fiction_films, searching for existing discussions of bad science and did find short discussions (1, 2, 3), but I only found three (and you may find more) out of the thousands of films listed, and the inaccuracies were usually major plot-holes. So, I'm starting to lean toward, "No, except if they're major plot-holes and cited by professionals in the field of discussion." I would say this same practice goes for historical fiction, too. Notably missing in WP:MOSFILM is a discussion on "Historical and scientific accuracies." (Perhaps we should move this whole discussion over there!) Ruodyssey (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that a 10.5 earthquake is impossible doesn't qualify as "a major plot hole" even though that's the title of the stupid movie? Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Again, this is a FICTIONAL movie, not a documentary and not one of Discovery's exploratory type things. Its fiction. In the film's version of the world, a 10.5 earthquake is plausible. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Doomsday Film

I am guilty of this myself, so I've noticed this article has been often mislabeled as being about a doomsday film when it is as best a disaster film. Note that doomsday films are global in scale whereas the earthquake in this film is not a global disaster. Ruodyssey (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/screen/sfw10955.html
- In 10.5 (TV miniseries) on 2011-05-23 01:55:59, 404 Not Found
- In 10.5 (TV miniseries) on 2011-05-31 21:00:35, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]