The award for bad science movie goes to; 2012 or Armageddon?

2012..,

Only because they had that fake website for having a chance to be saved from the disaster promoted with it. I don't exactly remember the BS site who claim to save an elite few among humanity. Worse! There's even a spin-off in TV! What, this hoax grows even another sprout and the hoaxters are benefitting from it. Everything about it is wrong, deeply flawed, exaggerated and is all about money. Gaining something from misinforming people where our teachers and parents are working hard at is such a shame. It's not even entertaining anymore.

Clear skies!

I haven't seen the 2012 one, but I think that it's pretty good. I would say that the award for the bad science movie would go to Armageddon, because it has almost no science at all. Think about it, an asteroid the size of Texas is heading towards Earth, so the Last thing we would want to do is to send there a space shuttle (which in reality can't reach that far), and blow that asteroid into thousands, if not millions of smaller asteroids, that would cause much more damage than the original asteroid. The smart way, would be to somehow change the asteroid's orbit by sending a spacecraft that would, lets say push it or something, away, or at least by a little bit so that it will miss us.

But even though Armageddon is really a sci fi movie and a fail science movie, I still love it, it's still good. I haven't seen the 2012 one yet, but by the commercials, I can say that it's a good action, sci fi, adventure movie.

Which of the many 2012 farces do you mean? I suffered thru the History Channel's 2012 farce waiting to see if they would offer a single shred of evidence, but they never did. They just kept repeating the same garbage, ad nauseum.

I could only stand about 10 minutes of "2012: Doomsday". I don't think anyone who graduated first grade could swallow a word of it.

Armageddon was full of scientific fallacies, but it wasn't so bad that I couldn't suspend my disbelief for two hours.

If you mean story line and science, the award for bad science goes to 2012.

But the CGIs look good in the trailers (but I can imagine they get boring after a short time).

Armageddon was so lame

never seen 2012 yet but it would have to be pretty bad to top that one

I actually thought Armageddon was kind of entertaining, even though there was nothing scientifically accurate about it. But I'm a fan of anything staring Steve Buscemi.

2012 defiantly, it has no scientific merit, all of the science behind it is crap (i havent seen it yet), and not just the science, the mindless destruction, it looks like one of those films that tries to wow the audience with destruction, and lack a plot line for more Intelligent science people, in my opinion its going to be a great film, but only for people who no nothing or very little about science.

never saw 2012 yet but Armageddon was not scientifically correct in any way.....good for eye candy though.

special effects ,..i give to 2012...( applause applause ).....best supporting actor in the B.S.science movie category goes to Bruce Willis Armageddon....( the crowd goes wild ) .