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'.
George Clooney talking for hours with a woman his age?
Pure Fantasy.
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.
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
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.
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
I don't think Gravity falls under the category science fiction. If I was to make a movie about a fictional accident in a fictional submarine, would that be science fiction? People can make movies about space now and it doesn't have to be considered science fiction if all of the technology is contemporary.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
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.
"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.
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
Comic book superheroes are not scifi. I do agree with the general thrust of your argument, that it's not necessary for a movie to follow rules. But you seem to think it's always wrong to expect a movie to follow rules. I think there is good art to be found in movies that do follow scientific rules. What's the point of asking a "what if?" question, if the answer is always "In movies, anything can happen."?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We'll "sequester" their oxygen at an inopportune time.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
Oh I learned that with Al Gore's "An inconvenient Truth.. "
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
No houses were picked up by tornado's in The Wizard of Oz
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Science Fiction is a sub-genre of Speculative Fiction. The idea is to twist a few things from reality and then make a story about it. With SciFi, those twists are usually related to technology or science (speculating on what might happen in the future at technology develops, for example). Fantasy is another sub-genre, where the twists are more supernatural. Of course, I'm making broad generalizations here, but the concept should be about right. All fiction is speculative to some extent, of course, but Speculative Fiction tends to alter something rather fundamental about reality.
So, ask yourself ... what exactly did Gravity speculate about with science or technology? "What if we hadn't shut down the Shuttle program" might work, but hardly seems to be enough to separate it into Science Fiction rather than just Fiction.
As an author establishes a new reality, the audience must suspend their disbelief to accept it. I have a theory that the closer the new reality matches real life experience, the less willing the audience needs to be (and the less willing they will be). Thus, Gravity needs to be much more faithful to science than, say Star Wars.