Gravity [Not a spambot]

[Lucid]

I went to see Gravity today and was blown away.

Stunning visual effects, a gripping story, and great performances by the two leads. A movie that grabbed my hand in it's first minute and didn't let me go until the credits rolled.

So, has anybody else seen it? Thoughts?

[Salbazier]

I've seen its last week. There is no other terms, I'm awed. I was both amazed and terrified in the early few minutes even before the debris thing started. Maybe because I'm acrophobia but I can help but thinking both how wonderful and how terrifying it is to be floating there in orbit. And after the debris thing started, well...

Not everyone feel the same, though. I watched it by my friends, and one of them complaining loudly after we're done, calling a waste of time .

The only complaints I have again the film is that some things require some suspension of disbelief/are not scientifically accurate (for a movie that intended to portray space technology as realistic as possible this a very valid criticism). Like it very premise of communication black out. Being astronomy students, picking it apart are one of the things me and my friends talked post-watching Oh, also it feel so short.

[Lamech]

I assumed that the communications blackout was caused by something else going horribly wrong on the ground. Like Russia starting world war III, they just didn't mention it so the space dudes didn't panic more than they had too.

[jeas]

I've seen its last week. There is no other terms, I'm awed. I was both amazed and terrified in the early few minutes even before the debris thing started. Maybe because I'm acrophobia but I can help but thinking both how wonderful and how terrifying it is to be floating there in orbit.

[SiuiS]

I wanna know, before I consider seeing it, if the ear-rending volume and shrieks and building shape tones are an actual thing throughout the movie, or if that was just every trailer.

[SecondRevan]

Gravity amazed me. For the first time is a long time, I struggled to articulate just what made it so good. It works on so many subtle levels. Been so long, even with movies I love, that I haven't been able to see the strings (I mean, there is a lot of obvious surface stuff throughout the movie, but they weren't the stuff that made Gravity so good. It was all the subtle stuff that turned the obvious stuff from trite symbolism or meaningless action to the amazing experience it is.)

Also, on realism. There are issues, but honestly they don't matter, except to experts. Very few movies try and be realistic. Those that do are generally very experimental. Movies like Gravity instead attempt to have the appearance of reality (which is why this doesn't work on experts. Experts have a different belief of what the appearance of reality is to most people). This is a distinct, different thing, as reality is does a really bad job at being 'realistic'.

Though even as I say that, Gravity actually is doing it for slightly different reasons than most. Gravity is supposed to show us the wonder and terror of space. Therefore, they had to make changes to make sure that was shown. Interestingly, by doing things like making the space stations too close to each other, you do a better job at showing just how big space is than having them the true distance. Because running out of oxygen and jetpack fuel on the trip there does a much better job of showing distance than simply saying 'its too far'. There is a reason show, don't tell exists

[Lucid]

I wanna know, before I consider seeing it, if the ear-rending volume and shrieks and building shape tones are an actual thing throughout the movie, or if that was just every trailer.

Don't worry, that's only in few parts. (Though I'm not sure what you mean by building shape tones'?) The trailer really doesn't do it justice.
And it's the first movie I can actually recommend seeing in 3D.

The only complaints I have again the film is that some things require some suspension of disbelief/are not scientifically accurate (for a movie that intended to portray space technology as realistic as possible this a very valid criticism). Like it very premise of communication black out. Being astronomy students, picking it apart are one of the things me and my friends talked post-watching Oh, also it feel so short.

I can imagine an astronomy student would've a different experience than me, as even without any science background I could pick out some flaws. (Though it didn't detract from my experience and enjoyment)

Spoiler

Show

Stuff like the locations of the space stations and telescope apparently all being closer and at the same height in orbit to get hit by the debris. Especially when they show the Chinese station falling into the atmosphere, yet still getting hit. But it wouldn't have been a very interesting movie if they got back to the shuttle and then only could wait there till the oxygen ran out or they got hit again.
I just assumed communication breaking down was due to the satellites all breaking down. Though I wondered what the likelihood of this occuring are, and have have since learned there's an actual theory regarding this.

I have to agree with SecondRevan, how realistic it is doesn't matter as much as how real it feels, and for me they succeeded with that.
The visual effects certainly help with that, I found myself thinking they must've shot this in space for real! Pretty much rivals my 8 year old self's feeling at seeing dinosaurs walk around in Jurassic Park.

[SiuiS]

Sorry, typo. That was to be sharp, not shape.

[huttj509]

I loved it, and there were definitely some, um, ninjas cutting onions in my theater (no, I wasn't tearing up, it was the ninjas).

And BTW, most of the comments I've seen from experts have had disclaimers along the lines of "I liked the movie, in case it wasn't clear."

Let's face it, as far as movies in space go, 90% is something like an A+++++++++++++ effort.

[Salbazier]

And it's the first movie I can actually recommend seeing in 3D.

Seconded.

. I can imagine an astronomy student would've a different experience than me, as even without any science background I could pick out some flaws.

Well, fortunately it is possible to 'turn off our brain' when watching movies so to speak (and the constant tension help in this regard). It just that if you have expertise on any related subject, it will tend to nag. On the other hand, that knowledge is also the thing that allow you to recognize when they got it right and appreciate the filmamker's effort of accuracy. So, its not actually a bad thing. When they got into ISS/Syouz, I wished I have some actual knowledge on aerospace electronics/rocket science just so I can have 'wow, that's part looks just like the real thing' moment.

[Kalmageddon]

It was one of the most intense cinematic experiences I've ever had.
I was on the edge of my seat the whole time, absolutely terrorized because that film is basically a rapresentation of my worst nightmare.

I'm not joking when I say that coming back from the movie theater at night I was freaked out by the black night sky above my head. That's how much it got to me.

[SecondRevan]

And BTW, most of the comments I've seen from experts have had disclaimers along the lines of "I liked the movie, in case it wasn't clear."

This is very true. Honestly, when it comes to realism, it isn't the experts who cause problems. They usually recognise the flaws, but are able to put that aside and enjoy the movie (or at least watch the movie on the terms that the movie wishes. Not every movie is good, after all).

The problem more lies with the type of people who have an obsession with realism, yet also don't fully understand everything, and end up either parroting the experts comments and using that as justification for why it is bad, or giving their own reasons why it isn't realistic (which are usually wrong)

[Equinox]

Ok, I agree with the above poster, and I am not one of the faux experts to complain about realism, in fact not complaining about anything at all, as I found the movie nothing short of mindblowing, but here's a question (spoilered just in case)

Spoiler

Show

When she gets to the Chinese space station, we see, among other objects, a ping-pong paddle floating in the cabin. How the heck does one play Ping-Pong in zero-G? Or do you think it was a deliberate wink-wink-nudge-nudge by the filmmakers?

[huttj509]

Spoiler

Show

When she gets to the Chinese space station, we see, among other objects, a ping-pong paddle floating in the cabin. How the heck does one play Ping-Pong in zero-G? Or do you think it was a deliberate wink-wink-nudge-nudge by the filmmakers?

Spoiler: Ping Pong

Show

If anyone figured it out, i'm sure the Chinese would.

Or possibly an astronaut brought it as a personal item/memento of home? I don't know what Chinese space policy is on that sort of thing.

Edit:

Spoiler: Tears

Show

Video of Chris Hadfield "crying" in space, if you want verification of what happens IRL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36xhtpw0Lg

[Soras Teva Gee]

This is very true. Honestly, when it comes to realism, it isn't the experts who cause problems. They usually recognise the flaws, but are able to put that aside and enjoy the movie (or at least watch the movie on the terms that the movie wishes. Not every movie is good, after all).

That's because actual realism is very very often... pretty boring to look at.

And why pay money to see the same old boring stuff you seek entertainment to escape from?

Spoiler

Show

When she gets to the Chinese space station, we see, among other objects, a ping-pong paddle floating in the cabin. How the heck does one play Ping-Pong in zero-G? Or do you think it was a deliberate wink-wink-nudge-nudge by the filmmakers?

Answered by an ancient Chinese proverb: Very carefully!

(Or just without a table and between two people)

[Equinox]

(Or just without a table and between two people)

Possibly. But then it's just Ping without the Pong ...

[Soras Teva Gee]

Possibly. But then it's just Ping without the Pong ...

Actually I would think that's closer to Pong....

[DigoDragon]

Actually I would think that's closer to Pong....

Heehee, good one.

Ping Pong should still be viable, though my idea would be a table that's more like a box (walls and a ceiling in adition to a floor) to keep the ball from bouncing away into another part of the station.

[Psyren]

I saw it last weekend it was really, really good. Sandra Bullock is still an A-list actress.

There are definitely some realism problems - Neil de Grasse Tyson did a great job pointing them out (though he enjoyed the movie anyway.)

Spoiler

Show

Kinda sad about George Clooney. Now I imagine his skeleton slowly orbiting the planet.

But seriously, they need to put WAY MORE TRACTION ON ASTRONAUT GLOVES! Give them electromagnets or velcro or something, jeez.

[Tylorious]

Check out what Neil Degrass has to say about this movie. Quite humorous if you ask me.

[Psyren]

Check out what Neil Degrass has to say about this movie. Quite humorous if you ask me.

I linked it in my post

[Equinox]

While he's a PhD and I'm a lowly MSc, I have to say it seems at points he's trying too hard. Some of the 'flaws' he points out really aren't.

[Psyren]

I'm sure it was all in good fun. And his points about her hair in the zero-G scenes, as well as regarding the two only major plotholes (the communication satellites should have been even higher than they were, and the three station "islands" should not have been within sight of one another) were good ones. WSJ:

Tyson says he liked “Gravity,” and that in retrospect he should also have discussed more prominently “the hundred things they got right.” But he makes no apologies for his insistence on scientific accuracy in the face of the retorts that “it’s only a movie.”

[SecondRevan]

I'm sure it was all in good fun. And his points about her hair in the zero-G scenes, as well as regarding the two only major plotholes (the communication satellites should have been even higher than they were, and the three station "islands" should not have been within sight of one another) were good ones. WSJ:

Tyson says he liked “Gravity,” and that in retrospect he should also have discussed more prominently “the hundred things they got right.” But he makes no apologies for his insistence on scientific accuracy in the face of the retorts that “it’s only a movie.”

I don't have any issues with Tyson's tweets. Honestly, I love the fact that a scientist is using Gravity to try and build interest in science. I have a problem with people who use those tweets to say it is a bad movie (if you don't like it, have some more legitimate critiques. I can think of several possible criticisms you could direct at Gravity. I don't agree with them, but they are much more legitimate than the science is wrong) The only tweet I had a problem with was

Mysteries of #Gravity: Why anyone is impressed with a zero-G film 45 years after being impressed with "2001:A Space Odyssey"

Unsurprisingly, this is the tweet where he isn't talking about science. Zero-G film making is still impressive, even 45 years after 2001. Any successful attempt to go above and beyond the standard cinematography tricks is impressive, even if Kubrick did it first.

His quote on scientific accuracy, though, I disagree with. Not because 'it is only a movie', but because it is a movie (there is a distinction). Movies have their own demands. That is why I had my speech about 'appearance of realism v realism' above, and how they are different things. And in 99% of cases, a movie should take the former over the latter. Because art has different goals to science.

Also, your two plot holes are not plot holes. They are elements of the setting of Gravity. Inconsistent with real life, but elements of the setting of Gravity. Sorry, it is just plot holes are so often misapplied, and it is frustrating, especially when idiots then use misapplied plot holes to attack movies (once again, I want legitimate criticisms. I mean, while Dark Knight Rises had many problems, I don't think I ever saw a complaint about it that wasn't 75% 'plot holes that aren't actually plot holes')

[Equinox]

Also, your two plot holes are not plot holes. They are elements of the setting of Gravity. Inconsistent with real life, but elements of the setting of Gravity.

Well said.
Also, any knowledgeable viewer would be clued in to the fact that the movie takes place in an alternate reality by the fact that in real life the Space Shuttle program was discontinued two months before the Chinese Space Station was launched, hehe.

[SecondRevan]

Well said.
Also, any knowledgeable viewer would be clued in to the fact that the movie takes place in an alternate reality by the fact that in real life the Space Shuttle program was discontinued two months before the Chinese Space Station was launched, hehe.

One of my favourite lines I remember someone saying about Gravity is that the film is obviously isn't realistic because in the movie, the US cares about the space program

[MLai]

A physics mistake I don't see ppl mentioning is the very important scene of Clooney's death.

You get a scene where Sandra is gripping onto George's lifeline, and him dragging behind her, as if there's some sort of mysterious gravitational force pulling him away from her. And it ends up necessitating him to sacrifice himself so that he doesn't "pull her down with him."

But... what is this mysterious constant force pulling him away? As soon as Sandra countered his momentum the first time, i.e. when she tugged at his line as he shot past her, he should have immediately rebounded towards her. Or, if she somehow applied just enough force to stop him right at that relative point, then he should just be drifting there with no further forces pulling/pushing him away. At that point, one slight tug from her would have reeled him back in.

[Equinox]

A physics mistake I don't see ppl mentioning is the very important scene of Clooney's death.

You get a scene where Sandra is gripping onto George's lifeline, and him dragging behind her, as if there's some sort of mysterious gravitational force pulling him away from her. And it ends up necessitating him to sacrifice himself so that he doesn't "pull her down with him."

But... what is this mysterious constant force pulling him away? As soon as Sandra countered his momentum the first time, i.e. when she tugged at his line as he shot past her, he should have immediately rebounded towards her. Or, if she somehow applied just enough force to stop him right at that relative point, then he should just be drifting there with no further forces pulling/pushing him away. At that point, one slight tug from her would have reeled him back in.

Thankfully, one does not need to be Neil Degrasse Tyson to rebut that. It's called Gravitational Gradient. As you know, the rotation period of a satellite in a circular depends on it distance from earth.

The ISS is at a height of about 200 miles above the earth. Therefore, it should complete a revolution around the earth in 93 minutes and 14 seconds. George Clooney is dangling, let's say, about 50 meters below the ISS on some tethers, therefore he's (200 miles minus 50 meters) above the earth, and should complete a revolution around the earth in 93 minutes 13.9 seconds.

The 0.1 second difference doesn't seem like much, but remember, they are moving at about 8 km/sec, so a difference of 0.1 seconds represents about 800 meters. Left to his own devices, if nothing held him, George Clooney would drift from the ISS 800 meters per revolution, or about 500 meters per hour. It is simply not possible for George Clooney to be 50 meters below the ISS and maintain the same orbit without being tethered to it.

That's the mysterious force pulling him away.

[Psyren]

A physics mistake I don't see ppl mentioning is the very important scene of Clooney's death.

You get a scene where Sandra is gripping onto George's lifeline, and him dragging behind her, as if there's some sort of mysterious gravitational force pulling him away from her. And it ends up necessitating him to sacrifice himself so that he doesn't "pull her down with him."

But... what is this mysterious constant force pulling him away? As soon as Sandra countered his momentum the first time, i.e. when she tugged at his line as he shot past her, he should have immediately rebounded towards her. Or, if she somehow applied just enough force to stop him right at that relative point, then he should just be drifting there with no further forces pulling/pushing him away. At that point, one slight tug from her would have reeled him back in.

NdG did point that one out too actually.

Also, your two plot holes are not plot holes. They are elements of the setting of Gravity.

Oh don't give me that crap. If they wanted "the setting of Gravity" to be different, they would have established it as such. They wanted the punch of using real, instantly recognizable names like "Hubble" and "Shenzhou"; by doing so, they invite the flak that comes with that. If they wanted to avoid it, the space stations would have been Hope, Dream, and Gumdrop or something. If you use real things, you don't get to cry "Fake setting! Fake setting! Forget everything you know about space!"

[MLai]

Oh, was Clooney "below" the space station, i.e. with the Earth under his feet? I just watched the movie yesterday, and was under the impression that Clooney was trailing "behind" the space station as it orbited the Earth.

I could be wrong, what with the vertigo-inducing cinematography during the action scenes. Nice explanation, thanks.