Slashdot Mirror
Gravity: Can Film Ever Get the Science Right?
dryriver writes in with a story lamenting the lack of accurate science in movies. "The relationship between science and science fiction has always been tempestuous. Gravity focuses on two astronauts stranded in space after the destruction of their space shuttle. Since Gravity's US release (it comes to the UK in November) many critics have praised the film for its scientific accuracy. But noted astrophysicist Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, had several issues with the accuracy of Gravity's portrayal of space. Through a series of posts on Twitter, Tyson — who later emphasized that he 'enjoyed the film very much' — highlighted various errors. He noted the Hubble space telescope (orbiting at 350 miles above sea level), the International Space Station (at 250 miles), and a Chinese space station could never be in line of sight of one another. On top of that, most satellites orbit west to east, yet in the film the satellite debris was seen drifting east to west. Tyson also noted how Sandra Bullock's hair did not float freely as it would in zero-gravity. This is arguably not so much an error in physics, but a reflection of the limitations of cinematic technology to accurately portray actors in zero-gravity. That is, of course, without sending them into space for the duration of the film. The Michael Bay film Armageddon is known for its woeful number of inaccuracies, from the space shuttles separating their rocket boosters and fuel tanks in close proximity to each other (risking a collision) and to objects falling on to the asteroid under a gravitational pull seemingly as strong as the Earth's. More than one interested observer tried to work out how big the bomb would have to be to blow up an asteroid in the way demanded in the movie. Answer: Very big indeed. Nasa is reported to have even used Armageddon as part of a test within their training program, asking candidates to identify all the scientific impossibilities within the film."
That is, of course, without sending them into space for the duration of the film.
That doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
Have you read my journal today?
Sandra to be exact.
"My pet peeve is inertia," says Trollope. "There are many good reasons for keeping your engines on in space, but 'maintaining speed' is not one of them. If you turn your engines off, you don't stop."
I have *years* of experience watching Star Trek to know that isn't true. Indeed, the only thing inertia can do for space travel is keeping horrid shows about it from being cancelled.
Have you read my journal today?
Shows like B5 got physics quite right when it came to Starfuries, but were purposefully ambiguous in other respects.
Sometimes "rule of drama" wins out, and it's understandable. There's no excuse, however, to bad physics becoming a pivotal plot point (I don't think I need to list any examples here).
"Trust me - I know what I'm doing."
- Sledge Hammer
Long answer: Gravity is about as close as Hollywood's *ever* come to doing it right, and will probably be as close as anyone's ever going to get, until the day you can actually shoot your movie in space itself.
But by then it'll probably be a reality TV show -- "the real housewives of the moon", or something like that....
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
If they got the science perfectly right, there would be no film. What they got wrong doesn't beggar belief, the way Armageddon does. Of all the problems this film has, the one that bothers me most is casting. I'd love to go see this in IMAX 3D, but I don't know if I can sit through 90 minutes of Cloony and Bullock.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I now understand how my dad (A Boeing inspector for many years) felt when watching movies with airplanes... pointing out that they took off in a 737, but the landing scene shows a 757!
I still recall how annoying it was to have such things pointed out all the time... So I try and keep my mouth shut during shows.
Imagine what it must be like for a real medical doctor to watch 'House', or a real serial killer to watch 'Dexter'.
If the film is any good, the science doesn't matter and even rocket surgeons won't care about glaring inaccuracies.
P.S. What is with the sycophancy over Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson?
George Clooney talking for hours with a woman his age?
Pure Fantasy.
Going into a theatre to watch any science fiction film implies a tacit agreement that what will be seen may or may not reflect our best scientific knowledge and conjecture. That's the whole point: entertainment. If you're into cinematic kitsch it is especially entertaining to see films that get the science very, very wrong, and you don't come out thinking that you just watched an episode of Nova that you could have watched at home.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
The movie is science fiction. At some point there will be inconsistencies (we have all groaned when hearing explosions in space.) Based on the post, putting the stations in line to advance the plot and getting the rotation wrong are pretty minor issues.
JW
...focuses on spoilers regarding a movie about space.
Tyson also noted how Sandra Bullock's hair did not float freely as it would in zero-gravity. This is arguably not so much an error in physics, but a reflection of the limitations of cinematic technology to accurately portray actors in zero-gravity.
More like Hollywood isn't interested in mussing an actress's hair. Pepper Potts fell into an inferno, and the wonder drug not only healed her, but grew her hair back with the same haircut and combed it.
If you want to go see a movie, expecting to see accurate science or other reflections of reality shouldn't be one of your motives.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Can film ever get crime investigation right?
Can film ever get historical events right?
Can film ever get geography right?
Can film ever get the law right?
etc.
Would you watch a Rocky movie if the boxing were as boring and silly-looking as a real professional boxing match (with most of the opponents time spent hugging each other)? Would you watch Mythbusters if they sent out all their results for months of peer-review? Would you watch House of Cards if almost of of the Senator's free time were spent at boring fundraiser dinners?
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Guns in movies never run out of bullets, which is okay because only a headshot is actually lethal. People only very rarely obese or old or ugly. Perhaps as a consequence, they're always having sex. Lawyers make dramatic moving speeches most of the time and rarely do boring paperwork, and cops do almost every other part of the legal system.
Anything more technical than that is bound to be even more unrealistic in movies. Hair floating is pretty trivial. Just pretend a wizard did it if it bothers you that much. Otherwise, applaud movies that do more ACCURATELY than usual.
Tyson is correct in every point he makes but he's missing the point. This was first and foremost a good, stunning movie. While I noted science quibbles in passing, it was hard to be preoccupied with them because I was fully engaged with the film. I do my worst nitpicking when I'm in hate with a film for wasting my damn time.
There's no sound in space. They stuck with that. I'm impressed so much by that one detail. What's more, read up on the notes the studio gave the director about things they wanted to see. They wanted flashbacks to Earth, they wanted Russians deliberately shooting missiles at the survivors and other silliness.
How would I rate the realism of this movie? It looks real-ish. Apollo 13 is hardcore real, only strained interpersonal dynamics were hammed up from what actually happened. But Gravity is a damned good film.
The only physics bit that bugged me was the tether scene. Spoilerish. Two astronauts tied together falling past a structure, once one of them grabs on and withstands the shock of the other astronaut snapping the tether taut, he should rebound back towards the secured astronaut, not dangle as if still being pulled by gravity. This would not be the case if, say, they were on a rotating structure or on a rocket making a significant burn but neither is the case.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
It's entertainment. Not real life. Not a NASA training video for what to do in case of an emergency. They don't have to get every last detail right in order for the movie to be successful both from a entertainment stand point as well as a general scientific standpoint. Sure Bullock's hair may not float right, or the debris drift away in the right direction. But neither are critical to the effectiveness of telling the story. Suspend your disbelief and just enjoy it.
A review from astronaut and engineer. Basically the artistic effect was great, but physics wrong.
Take a look at Les Misérables. The film is goes south very quickly at the end.
After Jean Valjean becomes wealthy why did he become mayor? He was still a wanted man after all. That was a stupid risk to take.
Why after escaping and saving Cosette why did he still stay in France? He seemed to have access to much wealth so why not go to Spain, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, or Canada? I mean how stupid was this man?
Simple... It would have made for a terrible story.
Most if not all the "errors" in Gravity were to make a good story.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Listen, I'll be the first to point out or notice glaringly dumb science inaccuracies in films, but going after Gravity on this count is pretty ridiculous given that the filmmakers knew *exactly* what they were fudging into order to, you know, giving us two hours of decent thrills instead of 2 minutes of, OK they're all dead now, or 2 hours of them drifting in space dying of asphyxiation. It's fine to point out the inaccuracies in order to inform people about the actual facts, but implying they somehow should have gotten it absolutely right is dumb, and really, the hair not floating? Come one, suspension of disbelief anyone? Besides, who's to say in the universe of the film that all 3 stations weren't in the same orbit very close to each other from some inexplicably crazy reason. :) That's really the only way they would have had a chance of survival, or at least tell a compelling story in that circumstance. And either space shuttle was still in service in that universe or it took place in the years it was in service (gasp movies can show things that aren't happening right now?). To me the silliest things were the Chinese station somehow being knocked into such a lower orbit that it was starting to immediately deorbit, but I see where they wanted to introduce yet another against the clock obstacle, and Clooney have to let go to save Bullock.
It's pretty much impossible to do a space disaster film with anything close to modern technology. It basically boils down to "Everything works exactly as planned or you die." Yes, we have Apollo 13 but most disaster scenarios are going to be more like Challenger and Columbia.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Film at 11.
Of course, Tyson also promoted the idea that Pluto wasn't a planet, so what does he know?
This is why nobody ever invites Neil deGrasse Tyson to the movies. It was a great movie. If your biggest quibble is that they made navigation line of sight to avoid tedious scenes full of calculating orbital mechanics, you're a killjoy.
Tyson was blogging for the sake of being heard; he's actually wrong about some of the things.
Several of the so-called errors aren't, and several others (like the relative orbits of Hubble, ISS, and the Chinese station) are "adjustments" for the sake of the story, (ie, there's no physical reason they couldn't be in those orbits, they just aren't in this particular universe. There's also no Space Shuttle "Explorer" in this one, either.)
The argument about the direction of satellites orbiting is stupid. If the debris were really orbiting east-to-west, you'd never see it (approach rate would be about 34,000 mph). It's in an orbit (actually, a whole bunch of orbits) with a relative speed of a few hundred MPH to the station. The orbits would soon diverge, but the whole movie only lasts a bit over two orbit periods.
Astronaut Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) has short hair in the film. Of course it doesn't drift around. Look at real videos of astronauts (male or female) with short hair.
Biggest gaffe is Kowalski saying the debris is moving at "50,000 MPH" -- which is twice escape velocity.
There's a scene where Kowalski untethers himself and drifts away. If you look at the stars in the background during that scene, it's apparent that the astronauts are rotating, so the drift is from "centrifugal" force.
As for Armageddon, it's a freaking Michael ("physics? we don't need no steenkin' physics") Bay film. Why is it even being mentioned in the same breath as Gravity?
Most of the westerns I have seen have no trouble getting the science right. Nor, for that matter, do romantic comedies or crime dramas.
The difference, of course, is that everyone is fairly familiar with the physics of bullets and the fluid dynamics of smoke in the wind. Once space travel reaches that level of penetration, the movies will have no trouble getting it right too.
Almost all science fiction in the history of science fiction goes so far as to flat out make up extra laws of physics to keep the story going. There are even famous hard sci-fi novels that implement impossible technologies for the sake of the plot. Science fiction is fantasy, consequently the science itself is often fictional. In the face of that, a few minor transgressions are nothing and there was no way to move the plot along in an entertaining Hollywood style fashion without these mistakes. This is an average movie for average people, as are most and we should be glad that average people find space interesting enough to see the movie at all.
Can we please stop fact-checking the movies?
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Isn't Apollo 13 really more of a dramatized documentary [with Tom Hanks] than a traditional movie?
Gravity is pure Hollywood and in that category, he's probably right. This is as good as Hollywood will get.
Not that you don't have a point. (You may try combing that down.)
This is why nobody ever invites Neil deGrasse Tyson to the movies. It was a great movie. If your biggest quibble is that they made navigation line of sight to avoid tedious scenes full of calculating orbital mechanics, you're a killjoy.
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
Am I the only one that imagines the NASA Armageddon test originating as a drinking game among colleagues?
Tornadoes don't pick up houses intact either; but The Wizard of Oz is a classic. So. Whatever. Not science, blah, Blah, BLAH. It's a fecking movie. Sheesh.
Nothing particular. I just thought I'd mention it. Because everybody seems to have forgotten the first SF movie to actually work at getting everything right.
I think that Kubrick would be amazed that we're well into the 2010s, and still not able to make accurate space movies as well as he did...
I don't so much mind a work of fiction bending science to align the story. That's what fiction does.
I'm much more bothered by science adding fiction to their work by providing an 'Artist Rendition" of a planet that might be like Earth. NASA sees a reddish speck near a star and suddenly the article has a picture of terrain, instead of a picture of a speck. That is a crime.
These science in fiction dicks need to stop picking on the wrong people.
Thank you for listening.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
No. It's movie - the best they can do is try. I'm less worried about ABSOLUTE scientific authenticity in movies than I am bored by hearing about another self-aggrandizing "photo-op" piece by Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Seriously? Nobody is going to cite 2001 as being probably the most accurate film for space travel...ever?
No noise in the vacuum of space?
Bowman's head not exploding when he has to blast himself into Discovery's airlock?
The fact Discovery has an area that rotates fast enough to simulate 1G for the sleeping crew as well as Bowman and Poole to keep from losing bone mass?
The trip from Earth to the space station (the latter of which had to rotate to also simulate 1G)?
Lensed in England by Stanley Kubrick, and still pretty damned accurate, especially since this was Arthur C. Clarke's work we're talking about here.
> On top of that, most satellites orbit west to east, yet in the film the satellite debris was seen drifting
> east to west.
Haven't seen the movie (yet) so I can't comment on the exact scenario, but, wouldn't debris be moving "east to west" if you were moving west to east faster* than it was?
Of course, if you are at the space station when it is destroyed.... given that each orbit is uniquely defined as a function of velocity and radial distance (before anyone forgets: velocity is a vector quantity, so this works, speed is a scalar - not enough info) then you really shouldn't ever see the debris it creates, as its going to be in such a similar orbit that it will take a very long time to either lap or be lapped by it.... in fact, oddly enough, lower orbits are slower and have shorter orbital periods so anything thrown off against the orbital direction should actually lap you before things tossed in that direction, which will move to slightly higher, faster,and longer orbits.
And yes, I have played way too much KSP recently.
* Locally faster anyway, or having larger angular velocity at the intersection point of the orbit might be the most accurate way of saying it
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
"Why don't they make more movies with space realism?"
"Damn, that *space realism movie* had some minor/moderate inaccuracies... I was really disappointed [that they didn't spend 500 million on production cost to really film he whole movie in microgravity]."
For space sake... there seems to be no way to please certain people.
If you are a NASA, space-science, space-exploration supporter: There is a time to be scientifically brutal and honest, and a time to sell cars (to borrow the phrase from Steven Spielberg, among others). When something like Gravity gets made, spend 95+% of time lauding the good aspects of the film... less time preening your own scientific ego about how much you know about space.
for going to the movies with Dr. Sheldon Cooper!
OK, I saw the movie, it is awesome in the true sense of the word awe, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The special effects are great, the story line simple and engaging. The the effects, especially the interior shots, are very detailed and the few technical issues didn't pull me out of the film to a large degree. While Tyson's comments are correct I think the link below from Bad Astronomer is a more interesting and full description of the issues: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html
These views express my own personal opinions, not those of the other voices in my head
The one part that really bugged me was the way Clooney's character chose to undertake their two trips. They were in their space-suits (with his having propulsion), joined by a tether. He would propel his suit and have his companion be jerked every time the tether went taut. What a horrible way to travel! Unless I'm missing something, the way to go in this situation would be to have Bullock ride in front of him - with the two masses rigidly joined. It'd be more efficient and less strenuous (though admittedly less dramatic). I can't believe an astronaut of Clooney's level didn't come up with the right strategy.
Oh yea - another thing: did anyone dislike the use of 3D for the shots of Earth? I generally think 3D is a waste in most contexts (I've had no problems preceiving depth before 3D came along). The one thing I noticed about this movie in 3D Imax (Metreon in SF) - is that small objects would all have shimmer around them because of the 3D effect. This totally ruined it: the perceived resolution was horrible - everything was super fuzzy and no details could be seen. The shots of Earth's landscape were a particular disappointment as you could tell nothing apart due to the fuzz on the outside of every feature. That was the one part I looked forward to - seeing beautiful shots of the Earth from space - but I was totally disappointed (I think the weather shots were fine - but mountain ranges etc were just UGLY)
"This construction would not be physically possible in real life," Neil deGrasse Tyson grumbled, as he slid to square 5 in Chutes & Ladders. (credited to @drewtoothpaste)
What the hell?
Naked and petrified.
In zero-G.
We'll "sequester" their oxygen at an inopportune time.
Table-ized A.I.
I've long thought that Neil deGrasse Tyson is the biggest dickhead in science. He continues to add confirming data to this hypothesis all the damn time.
I don't mind a little bit of 'this would not happen like that' for fun, but don't obsess over it. It was a great film, fun to watch and a little different then what we have seen recently. So the space junk would not have spread in the exact same way, but would it have been a thrill ride if we had to wait days for it to happen?
From someone who was somewhat upset when a nuclear power plant mishap was sold as cover story for nuclear blasts in Resident Evil none of the things listed even begin to rise to the level of a problem.
Has anyone ever watched as NASA EVA from start to finish. They are EXTREMELY boring. In one hour, they maybe get in position, tighten a few bolts and talk about next procedures.. And that goes on for 20 hours.
Please, don't make our films MORE true to reality. Save that for documentaries.
So the orbits of ISS, Tiangong, and Hubble are so different that the three aren't even remotely near enough to each other to be visible by naked eye to each other. We know this.
Yet it is possible for them to have been placed into the same orbits - so for the sake of storytelling, I'm going to say they were. I'm willing to let that go - that's not a scientific detail, it's a fact of moving something for the sake of storytelling. That happens very often. One that is big to me is the TV show "Grimm" which takes place in my hometown of Portland, Oregon. They often have landmarks as being much closer to each other than they are in real life.
They also show Tiangong as being much larger than it is in real life - they show it more akin to the planned Chinese modular space station.
For the problem of traveling between the various objects, the big problem is the time. There have been on-orbit rendezvous, including one between two separate-orbit space stations: Soyuz T-15 launched, docked with the Mir space station (the first mission to Mir,) spent a month and a half spinning up Mir, flew to Salyut-7 (the last mission to the last of the Salyut series stations,) spent a month and a half at S-7 spinning it down and gathering items to transfer to Mir, then went back to Mir for another three weeks!
The trick of it is that Mir was launched in to a very similar orbit to Salyut-7, and yet it took 26-28 hours to travel between the two. Hubble, ISS, and Tiangong would have to be *VERY* close to each other to be able to get between all three in a little over 90 minutes.
As for the debris traveling the wrong direction? How about that they're traveling at a different angle instead? They would *APPEAR* to astronauts who are "stationary" in comparison to the ISS as traveling at high speed from a certain direction, when really the two are just in same-altitude orbits at different angles.
It remains funny to see that there are still people out there that are amazed about the fact that movies are never scientifically accurate.
Sandra Bullock was interviewed on the Daily Show. I believe she said that they were originally going to actually shoot in zero-g (via a plane doing parabolic arcs I think), but very late in the game, they decided to do something else. I think that the Apollo movie with Tom Hanks did this.
But seriously, so many movies could have been great if they had just paid attention to some detail or other, such as realism, or having a better script. I'm always amazed at how much money they can throw at a movie, how many people they hire to do a movie, and then utterly fail to fix the broken parts. Like when they have hundreds of CGI guys working on pretty crap, but fail to have good dialogue or a decent plot, etc. Hire some people who know what they're doing, and then *listen* to them. Shit, start hiring Mr. Tyson before you release the movie, instead of having him pick it apart afterwards. Hell, do some research on the web to find out which direction the Earth rotates, which direction satellites go, where they are in orbit, etc.
It's a movie, get over it. The scientific community doesn't seem to get upset with movies about vampires or zombies or Hogwarts or Middle Earth, but for some reason if it's about the real world, it has to be 100% accurate. It's a movie, get over it.
EomBridget jones diary had excellent physics
Almost everything on the list is adequately explained in the books.
it would be a documentary. (That does not mean that a documentary gets it right.) The story and how it looks is what makes a good movie, not if you see something fit for the goofs section on IMDb.
Movies are not real life. News at 11.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
can't get math right, what makes you think they could possibly do sciences like physics, and concepts like gravity or orbital mechanics, right? that's asking for just a little too much.
Best science in b5 the cobra bays deploy the starfuries by flinging them out using the stations rotation. Notice they fan out as they launch keeping them clear of one another. Much better than BSGs launch tubes.
The episode where Boxliner jumps from the central core transport pod, and floats. Comment from Ivanova, he's essentially weightless right now, but the ground is still moving at 40mph, it wil be a mess when he hits.
Pff. I'd kill to go watch a movie with Neil.
In fact, I'd like to make an MST3K style show where we watch awful movies and laugh at the bad science. The in-between scenes would be him explaining the various problems in the movie in more detail to sarcastic puppets.
Holy shit. Somebody do this, please. It would be fucking awesome!
The clue is in the fact that somebody made it up (or wrote the story if you like).
That is the definition of fiction, as opposed to fact, which in terms of stories means events which actually took place.
And if anyone mentions the moon landings below here, you are on the wrong site.
Slightly longer answer: people want stories, not dry factual events. I have yet to read a science fiction story that didn't stretch the truth, but the critical thing was that if most of the science was still good then it was okay. 'Gravity' stretched the truth: orbits weren't right, the debris field wouldn't have been like that. "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" (to quote Mr Chopper Read). If it was factual it would be less dramatic, more cerebral, if they lost all their oxygen or suffered damage to heat shield on the shuttle etc etc, then what would the story be? Slowly dieing of oxygen starvation? Sacrifice someone? Still wouldn't solve anything. Okay in a short story like "The Cold Equations" but in a movie? Nah, bollocks. I liked 'Gravity', everyone should just take a few deep breaths and settle down.
Bitter and proud of it.
...is called a documentary.
Spelling Nazi
Grammar Nazi
Now, we have fucking Science in Movies Nazi. It's a fucking show. Shove the popcorn in your face and shut the fuck up.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Long answer: It then wouldn't be called Speed; it would be entitled Acceleration, and it wouldn't be as catchy
[CAUTION: POSSIBLE SPOILERS]
I've seen the shuttle in person (piggybacked on a 747). It is fucking huge. I've not seen the ISS up close, but I understand the solar arrays are massive. Given that, was it just me or was the size scale off on the shuttle/ISS renderings in this movie? Especially when they were working near the bay of the shuttle just as the swarm of debris approached, as well as when they were in front of the ship peering in at the destruction and the dead crew. It all just seemed so small to me.
I'm thinking maybe this was a device used by the director in order to provide some sort of balance on-screen: Had actual scale been used, all you'd ever see was shuttle or ISS, with no space in the background.
A habitually unshod foot develops a thick sole. This is true of Hobbit feet as well as Mannish feet like those of Jeff Poppen. In what way is washing your feet before entering not enough?
This is why nobody ever invites Neil deGrasse Tyson to the movies. It was a great movie. If your biggest quibble is that they made navigation line of sight to avoid tedious scenes full of calculating orbital mechanics, you're a killjoy.
Oh man you picked the wrong scientist to call uncool...do you know anything about him? Or are you content with knowing nothing yet criticising just as you are with a film that gets basic physics wrong?
Even if you were on the other side of the planet, the winds would be upward of 2000 mph, with an over pressure of 276 psi. The sound would be 126 dB, and you would experience an earthquake of 13.6 richter. Blowing up something that big doesn't help - it's still 9x10^20 kg of rock falling on the earth, basically all at once. So, even if the Armageddon asteroid was blown up into a million pieces, it would still mean DOOM.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
This is why nobody ever invites Neil deGrasse Tyson to the movies. It was a great movie. If your biggest quibble is that they made navigation line of sight to avoid tedious scenes full of calculating orbital mechanics, you're a killjoy.
The "cool kids" are overrated. The drama of having to calculate orbital mechanics by yourself without NASA would be far more interesting than watching the astronaut who crashed the Soyuz landing in the simulator multiple times struggle to remember which button to press to disconnect from the space station, but be inexplicably fantastic at manually firing thrusters just right to avoid colliding to said station while tethered to it by a tangled parachute all the while going through rapid rotations induced by collision with a debris field. Then we get to watch the actual landing procedure that she consistently failed in the simulation be performed entirely automated by the computers of a Chinese capsule that supposedly uses the exact same procedure as the Soyuz. Which apparently involves pressing all of 1 button, and works even if you mistakenly press a few wrong ones by mistake first. It'll just beep at you if you do that. This completely automated, flawless landing will happen even though the capsules computers are shown bugging up and catching on fire during re-entry.
I think it's pretty sad that what passes for "scientific accuracy" is that there was no sound in space, while completely ignoring the more important things like the ability to see the ISS from Hubble and to match orbits with it relatively quickly via the thrusters of the MMU. Then when you bring into question the scientific plausibility of the debris field that is responsible for the disaster in the movie, you're said to be "nitpicking" said "scientifically accurate" movie.
I had more fun watching Armageddon. At least it didn't pretend to be anything other than action movie in space, which is all Gravity really was.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
When Mr astronaut is about to let go of the rope to save Miss Astronaut, they're currently moving at the same velocity, since they're joined by their tether, why does he accelerate away when he cuts the cord?
Michael Crichton had the following to say about science in sci-fi: http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/crichton/story.htm
TL;DR - Sci-fi isn't about realism and nit-picking, it's about crafting an entertaining story.
Screw Dr Tyson.
That the guy that is bitching about a movie called Gravity got much of his popularity by whoring up black holes and giving a rather misleading view of the gravity of that object. (I mean how many realize the gravitation influence of a stellar mass black hole is actually less significant than the star that created it? If you listen to Tyson you problem wouldn't know that.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
The first half of the post was on topic and interesting, but then suddenly devolved into a critique about Armageddon!? I would have liked to have read more feedback about the inaccuracies (or inaccuracies) in Gravity.
I respect the man for his science
I don't respect him for pulling out his cell phone in the dark and texting during the movie
Seriously.. bad taste, antisocial behavor
Chill Dude!
Those are usually accurate! :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
With the law of gravity being a central part of the plot, it is simply piss poor attention to details (nothing new with hollywood, who doesnt much care about such things, only the money to be made).
Because most livestock do have separate "toilet areas" in which the defecate, i.e animals are not that stupid to shit where they eat so the designate specific areas of a field for that.
You've never seen livestock or any other animal that had more than two dimensions?
Hard Sci-Fi Movies on Twitter
Having actually had to calculate intercept orbits without benefit of a computer to do the heavy lifting, I assure you that it would not have improved the movie. Takes about half an hour, assuming that all of your information is accurate.
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
I can live with the fact that SciFi like Gravity gets a few details wrong. For instance, having Sandra Bullock's hair floating around her head in a Medusa-like fashion the whole time might have been needlessly distracting. I am bothered, however, when a fundamental plot device defies the laws of physics.
Objects in (circular) orbits do so at a particular altitude proportional to their velocity. Decreasing or increasing their velocity would move them into a higher or lower orbit. In Gravity, a cloud of debris is circling the Earth at the same altitude as George and Sandra's spacecraft, but travelling at a much higher velocity. So much higher that it completely "laps" them, going past and them coming around again every 90 minutes. This repeated passing of the faster-moving debris cloud in the same orbit as Sandra Bullock is the key element in Gravity's plot, yet is completely impossible.
I am very familiar with who he is. I also hold a degree in Physics. At the same time, I recognize the difference between a film made for entertainment purposes, and a film made for educational purposes. Gravity was the former, and I choose to evaluate it for what it is. Likewise, I don't criticize my cat because she can't repair a motorcycle, and hopefully she doesn't criticize me because I'm bad at catching mice.
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
It's not about gravity until the last 3 minutes or so.
Although I agree that a movie named "Newton's first law" wouldn't be as appealing to potential viewers.
I remember watching stargate (the movie): they send a robot which sends a beacon signal through a warp gate and then they immediately receive a signal saying that the robot is 10 light-years away, instead of having to wait 10 years..
Even though I didn't care about 'scientific realism' in the movie, my brain told me 'this is wrong' and it "took me out" of the movie, so scientific realism isn't a big issue unless it kills your enjoyement of the movie..
Honestly, good science rarely makes good entertainment. Have you watched the NASA channel? While I did watch it back when I had cable, I found it tedious and boring... and that's actually pretty much what space is really like. Tedious, boring and procedural. And that's really how you want it to be; if you have "exciting" stuff happen in space then you're quite likely going to die.
I enjoyed the hell out of Gravity. While it was definitely Hollywood, it was less Hollywood than most movies these days. And the story while linear and mostly predictable pretty much had me on the edge of my seat all the way through. There were certainly a few moments where I found the science to be abominable; hell in the first 5 minutes I could pick out at least 5 major oversights and flaws... and that was even before the debris cloud. But the story was good enough and the acting was good enough that I overlooked it and just enjoyed the hell out of the movie.
And while much of it was hinted to be in "our universe", much of it was really "alternate universe" in that the space shuttle program continued and had new ones built... the Tiangong is more than just two or three Soyuz and Salyut rip-offs strung together in LEO... new advances in the MMU-style program have produced a jetpack that's more capable and has a LOT more fuel than the MMU etc. There was little that was really glaringly bad in my opinion and I could point at them as niggles rather than out and out hanging offences!
Let me put it this way; if you enjoyed The Right Stuff (which I did and still do, immensely) then you'll probably enjoy Gravity. They are both about as scientifically and historically accurate as each other!
I'm just glad they didn't do what Sunshine did and toss out the great sci-fi 1/3rd of the way through and replace it with stupid horror movie bullshit. If the writers of Sunshine had gotten their hands on the script for Gravity they would have changed the 3rd crewmember on the spacewalk into a terrorist chasing Sandra Bullock's character while giving out sick one-liners and panting heavily into a microphone.
A large slingshot that would ballist them to a height of about 100 yards would be nice. The apex is low enough to make it a good spectator sport and high enough to not need relaunching the duds. Would be cheap too, just change out the bungee cords every few hundred shots or so.
Has anyone seen this?
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/10/4823078/neil-degrasse-tyson-gravity-movie-high-quality
Actually, all the physics in the movie 'Gravity' are perfectly accurate -- Just imagine that Clooney and Bullock are little, round green pigs, and the debris field is a flock of angry birds. Clearly, the authors of this movie learned their physics from the game "Angry Birds Space."
If you've been to NASA recently you'll see that by far the most popular, and nearly the biggest attraction there is the Angry Birds Space pavilion. The only thing bigger is the actual Saturn V rocket laying on its side. But you have to get on a tram to go see that one. Angry Birds is in the main building. It's all over the main building. You might even miss the space shuttle off in the corner if you aren't paying attention.
People have complained that objects in the movie seem to slow down or stop in space, without anything making this happen -- a violation of Newton's law that anything in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by something else. Angry Birds Space, objects floating or spinning in space will slow down and stop, as if their motion is impeded by some kind of mysterious, etherial fluid. The move and the game agree.
In the most hated scene, where George Cloony is hanging by a strap from the Bullock character, and she is hanging from a parachute cord, it is argued that he should be just as weightless as the space station is, and the rebound of their inertia should pull them back to the station. But if you've ever played 'Angry Birds Space', you'll recognize immediately that poor old George is actually inside the sphere of Earth's gravity, while Bullock and the station are still outside it! Of course, the movie is much more realistic than the game is. In the movie, the sphere is invisible -- just like real life.
And so on. So there you go.
As another George famously asked, and I repeat, "Is our children learnin'?"
It's our world. We should demand better.
Having actually had to calculate intercept orbits without benefit of a computer to do the heavy lifting, I assure you that it would not have improved the movie. Takes about half an hour, assuming that all of your information is accurate.
I've never *had* to do such a thing, but I've attempted to do it for fun while playing with Orbiter (and messed it up somewhere along the line, because it didn't really get me to the orbit I wanted). I'm aware of the amount of work involved at least. The benefit of a movie is that you don't have to show them working through the calculation for half an hour. The tension would be in finding ways to get the accurate information they needed, and then you could time-warp the calculation away.
Part of the gimmick (and it was a gimmick) of Gravity, is that the entire movie takes place in zero-G. If they had other characters in it, such as mission control on Earth trying to figure out how to regain communications, or people in the ISS or Chinese station before they bailed, they could easily cut to those other characters while the main ones perform the computation.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Movies seldom get anything right. They butcher stories adapted from books, get science wrong, whatever fancy strikes the director as a good idea to sell a movie is OK. Why are the early James Bond movies better than the last dozen? Because the early ones tried to follow a book, not adding to or changing the story. Movies now much have a chase scene, with physics defying action in the first 5 minutes, because the market is young males raised on video games. Disgusting.