Gravity - SPOILERS; discussion of Earth orbit

[Bullgrit]

Neil deGrasse Tyson notes on the movie has made me decide not to see it.

As much as I like and respect NdT, (I am currently reading his book Space Chronicles and loving it), his a bit nit-picky about movies. I mean, he complained about the night sky in Titanic -- something 99.99% of the viewers wouldn't catch or care about.

As for his comments about Gravity:

Sandra's hair not affected by weightlessness -- her hair in the film is very short.

Sandra's character in the movie is a medical engineer.

"Why we enjoy a SciFi film set in make-believe space more than we enjoy actual people set in real space" -- Really? This is a mystery to him? We enjoy a film set in make-believe Earth more than we enjoy actual people on the real Earth.

"Nearly all satellites orbit Earth west to east yet ..." -- How many people know this, and how many of even them would recognize which direction the debris was moving while watching the movie?

"Why anyone is impressed with a zero-G film 45 years after being impressed with 2001: A Space Odyssey" -- Yeah, we're only allowed to be impressed once per subject. Yet he laments the waning interest in space travel.

Again, I like and respect NdT a great deal. But these tweets really make him sound like an ass. I wish he wouldn't be so snarky about something imaginary that could boost interest in something real.

Bullgrit

 

[Kramodlog]

IS a medical engineer the same as rocket surgeon?

 

[Hand of Evil]

As much as I like and respect NdT, (I am currently reading his book Space Chronicles and loving it), his a bit nit-picky about movies. I mean, he complained about the night sky in Titanic -- something 99.99% of the viewers wouldn't catch or care about.

Bullgrit

For some reason I just picture him doing Mystery Science Theater 3000 pissing off all the other movie goers.

 

[RangerWickett]

Hand of Evil, it's a really good movie. The inaccuracies are either due to technical limitations (floating hair is hard to make look not-dumb) or were conscious choices for the sake of creating what is a truly wondrous spectacle. Alfonso Cuaron knew what was reality, and made intentional decisions when to deviate. It's not laziness. It's craftsmanship. Just like how the Statue of David's features aren't 100% accurate to an actual human's, but they look great.

For instance, at one point it's necessary to 'catch up' with a vessel further ahead in the orbit. In reality you need to slow down, so you'll drop into a lower orbit (which means you'll circuit the earth at a faster pace), which will let you catch up with your target, after which you'd accelerate in order to get up to the orbit they're in. But most people don't know that, and explaining that would take people out of the story. So instead they show a ship firing thrusters, because that intuitively makes sense if you're trying to 'catch' someone.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Neil deGrasse Tyson notes on the movie has made me decide not to see it.

I read his twitter complaints and have to admit that they are 100% accurate and a very high percentage (YMWV) of not-at-all very relevant because it's a movie, not a science lesson, and that was made VERY clear by the filmmakers despite their goal of making it as accurate as their ultimate purposes would allow them to be. Unrelenting scientific accuracy would have made for a VERY short movie because the characers would simply be dead or irrevocably lost. For that matter the precipitating incident as described in the movie wouldn't have even happened because nobody in the space business would do what was described unless they were deliberately trying to ruin space travel and satellite communications for themselves and the rest of the world. But even Tyson noted that he still ENJOYED the movie.

My own complaint against the movie wasn't with scientific inaccuracies (although the sequence of plot events definitely took a SERIOUS toll on my suspension of disbelief) but that we were given absolutely no time to be emotionally invested in the characters in order to truly CARE about their survival.

But I still found it a truly EXCELLENT movie and well worth anyone's time.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But even Tyson noted that he still ENJOYED the movie.

That's what I was going to say.

Clearly, even though they get many things right, there are major scientific inaccuracies that would derail parts of this movie. And I wish they'd done better. But if you can't enjoy a movie that isn't 100% accurate to reality, you're going to be waiting a while. A science-based speculative film like this is subject to a high level of scrutiny, but really almost any film with an action component has significant inaccuracies. If they do enough right, it can still be enjoyable.

 

[Crothian]

Okay, that was just awesome. Heck, even movies based 100% in reality like documentaries are rarely 100% accurate if ever.