Jump to content

Gravity (Movie)

Zacho

By Zacho
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

pslytely psycho

pslytely psycho

Posted
Posted

Buzz Aldrin reviewed it.

If anyone has the right to complain it's Buzz. He said:"I was so extravagantly impressed by the portrayal of the reality of zero gravity. Going through the space station was done just the way that I've seen people do it in reality. The spinning is going to happen -- maybe not quite that vigorous -- but certainly we've been fortunate that people haven't been in those situations yet. I think it reminds us that there really are hazards in the space business, especially in activities outside the spacecraft.

I was happy to see someone moving around the spacecraft the way George Clooney was. It really points out the degree of confusion and bumping into people, and when the tether gets caught, you're going to be pulled -- I think the simulation of the dynamics was remarkable."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-review-by-astronaut-buzz-639883

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Motokid600

Motokid600

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just saw it in IMAX 3D. Amazing movie. One for the books no dout. Im gonna see it again this week probably.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Few things had me scratching my head.

1.) Tiangong station is "loosing altitude and is going to start kissing the atmosphere." ..how? Wtf deorbited the station? A debris strike? ( as if ) because as far as I know the station was not damaged before it starting hitting the atmosphere. Did the Chinese deorbit it before abandoning the station?

2.) The debris field. It came back around every hour and a half. But.. Clooney stated the debris was moving at 50k mph. Or was it 26k mph? Either way... This is escape velocity. Debris traveling at 26,000mph is no longer in orbit. That debris cloud would not have come back around at those speeds.. no? 26,000mph and your going to the moon.

3.) Why were the chutes deployed on the Soyuz? Debris damage?

4.) ..The "soft landing" ( and I put that in quotes because I've seen car wrecks softer then a Soyuz landing ) rockets were used to get her to Tiangong station. Would that even apply enough delta-v? ( a term I was sad to see absent from the movie ) And if it did.. she would've been moving WAY to fast to grab onto the station. Bullock wouldve been a bug on a windshield. It was no Hoffman transfer that's for damn sure.

Other then that... It was the most accurate movie ive ever scene. My hat is off. Bravo! Hell I just wish it was longer. It just... Ends. I want a follow up. A debriefing scene was needed.

And it would've been nice if she actually found the vodka after her little epiphany scene where Clooney reached for it... Ha. I know I could've used a drink after that..

A truly beautiful movie. I hope future directors learn from it.

Edited by Motokid600
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lajoswinkler

lajoswinkler

Posted
Posted (edited)

Motokid, spoilers should be hidden from view and that's usually done by coloured fonts. The best color is the one that matches the background, #FAFAFA, with bright bold red pre-warning SPOILERS AHEAD.

That being said, here are my answers to your questions, hopefully they're correct:

1) That is never explained. My guess is they've added it for the extra suspense. Nothing was damaged before the Kessler syndrome.

2) I don't recall the numbers, but are you sure they weren't talking about m/s?

3) In the script, we learn it was the debris that showered both Tiangong and ISS, damaging the parachute system of one Soyuz at ISS. Apparently there were two Soyuz ships, but one left with people onboard in a hurry right in front of Stone and Kowalski cruising tethered towards the station. People on Tiangong left, too.

The ending leaves us puzzled, but it's for the best. Not everything needs to be told in movies. That's something most popular American movies tend to do. They explain everything and leave nothing to think about. The closure was there. Stone experienced an emotional rollercoaster and complete catharsis of her character. It was literally what Cuarón has said - she was in enclosed in her own state of mind and had to shed away her protection to reach the final safety. Words are unnecessary. The movie has a surprising amount of artistic approach for a blockbuster. We can just hope it will set a path for future films, not only in CGI but also about what film is all about - art.

(end of spoilers)

Edited by lajoswinkler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Motokid600

Motokid600

Posted
Posted (edited)

Thanks lajoswinkler I fixed it. As far the the speed of the debris goes.. if it was m/s then 50/26,000 m/s is BOOKIN it lol. Im sure he said 50,000mph. Either way the number he stated was far to fast for orbit. I gotta see it again though I could be wrong. Because he does get the time right.. an hour and a half ( 90 minutes ) is roughly the time it takes to orbit the Earth once at the ISS's altitude.

Edited by Motokid600
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beowolf

Beowolf

Posted
Posted
Saw this last night. If you ignore the movie over it's inaccuracies, you're doing yourself a disservice.

Same here, and I agree. Yes, I spotted literally dozens of little problems, and a few big ones. But as a lifelong nit-picker, no director but Ron Howard with Apollo 13 has ever worked so hard to get "space" right.

NON-SPOILER COMMENTARY:

The "50,000 mph" quote and periodic nature of the debris cloud makes more sense if the debris cloud is in a polar orbit.

Assume the movie's whole timeline was compressed for dramatic reasons. It makes the orbital mechanics work out better. When you watch it, just tell yourself they actually wait half an orbit after thrusting just like we do. Only that was edited out because waiting is boring.

A space station could plausibly get some delta-v from debris hitting an oxygen or monopropellant line, causing a leak that changes its orbit.

Enjoy the movie! It's a great ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rodion_herrera

rodion_herrera

Posted
Posted (edited)

(possible spoilers)

The "nods" (to other sci fi movies) I managed to count in the movie:

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey - Dr. Stone, detached from shuttle, losing oxygen, parallel to Dr. Frank Poole's tumbling away from Discovery.

2. Mission to Mars - Connie Nielsen and Tim Robbins

3. Wall-E - obvious

4. Fetal position - 2001: A Space Odyssey's ending (Star Child)

5. Camera angle at the end scene when Dr. Stone stands up and looks at the sky - another 2001: A Space Odyssey nod...I believe this is supposed to match the scene in 2001 when "Moonwatcher" discovers how to use tools.

Maybe you can add more that I've missed.

Edited by rodion_herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BurntPhoenix

BurntPhoenix

Posted
Posted
(possible spoilers)

The "nods" (to other sci fi movies) I managed to count in the movie:

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey - Dr. Stone, detached from shuttle, losing oxygen, parallel to Dr. Frank Poole's tumbling away from Discovery.

2. Mission to Mars - Connie Nielsen and Tim Robbins

3. Wall-E - obvious

4. Fetal position - 2001: A Space Odyssey's ending (Star Child)

5. Camera angle at the end scene when Dr. Stone stands up and looks at the sky - another 2001: A Space Odyssey nod...I believe this is supposed to match the scene in 2001 when "Moonwatcher" discovers how to use tools.

Maybe you can add more that I've missed.

Marvin the Martian!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hayoo

Hayoo

Posted
Posted (edited)

Saw it the other night in 3D. Breathtaking film. I loved the silence and grandeur of it all. As others have stated it won't win awards for accuracy in orbital mechanics, but it does nail that feeling of being in space for viewers who didn't have a clue before as to what it is like. I really enjoyed the movie, although like others I did have some hang-ups...

Here Be Spoilers:

1) Orbits - From what I can gather, the makers of the film simply took everything that everyday people know that was up in space (Shuttle, Hubble, ISS, Tiangong, every single tracking and telecommunication satellite), and put them in a single orbit and within ~100km of one another. There is no low-, high-, or geosynchronous orbits, there is just Earth Orbit and things will fall but no one talks about them going higher (unless you're the astronaut tumbling out into space). Then they treated the relationships between these objects as if they were flying through the atmosphere, i.e. debris will rotate the earth at faster speeds but won't escape, merely catch-up to the "slower" stations. While this blows tons of holes in the plot, it does free the director from having to explain orbital transfers and rendezvous. To the average viewer, flying between objects in space is like driving from one gas station to another, just head "west" along a single plane as they said in the movie. If you accept this, the story does work in the same fashion that Twister does: our hero runs for cover but is chased away every 90 minutes. Grade = Pass

2) Rookie Astronaut - How did Ryan Stone get chosen to go into space? She was a medical engineer, trained for only six months to install a medical-based instrument on the Hubble. Yet we don't hear that this was an emergency repair, unless I'm mistaken. So why the rush to get her up there? Why couldn't a veteran astronaut be trained to install the equipment? Afterall they do it all the time, and they rehearse it over and over for years even before a mission to make sure they got it right. Ryan would have certainly been a consultant/contractor. The rest of the crew didn't even seem to know Ryan, where she was from, whether she had family, etc. It was all very odd for a seemingly routine mission. I also think she would have had a difficult time being sent up there if she had to pass a psyche exam, given her tragic history. I get why they did it though. Ryan is supposed to be the unlikely astronaut, a rookie, anxious and untested. She is meant to represent the average viewer, a window for our senses. And it certainly works. The audience around me were clutching their seats and gasping with every hand-rail Bullock missed and every debris that whizzed by. They didn't express that at all for Clooney. Grade = Pass

3) Crazy Astronaut - I think the third spacewalking astronaut helping with Hubble at the beginning would have been grounded or fired when the mission was over; constantly pushing himself away from structures for fun only to be yanked back by his own tether. I guess this was meant to be an early sample for viewers on how micro-gravity works or an attempt to lighten the mood before all hell broke loose. I didn't feel it though. I kept waiting (wanting) for the ground to call "Explorer, this is Houston, please get that guy inside and put him in a straight-jacket, over." Grade = Fail

Having said all that, I will definitely go see it again, but in IMAX this time. They really did capture the awe of being up there.

And yeah, the debris music really does creep you out. Holy crap.

Edited by Hayoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibb31

Nibb31

Posted
Posted

I haven't seen it yet (it's only coming out at the end of october here), and don't want to be spoiled, but here are some of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's comments on the movie:

http://gawker.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-thinks-gravity-is-scientifically-i-1441842497

All in all, he seems to have liked it. The inaccuracies seem pretty minor to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TADBTD

TADBTD

Posted
Posted (edited)

SPOLIER ALERT

Well space suits are made out of material that is a lot like body armor, so they can take a descent hit if it's just secondary debris.
Yes but if they get hit with a pebble, or even microscopic object and punctures the suit, the vacuum and radiation will kill the astronaut in 5 minutes.

yes theres on epart where some guys head has hole in it du eto debris,DISCUSTING

one question, how the hell does one piece of debris make a chain reaction. WORST TIMING EVER for a launch

and wtf were the russians thinking launching a satt to make debris?

Edited by stupid_chris
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lajoswinkler

lajoswinkler

Posted
Posted
Yes but if they get hit with a pebble, or even microscopic object and punctures the suit, the vacuum and radiation will kill the astronaut in 5 minutes.

If the suit gets punctured, they will die because of radiation? Where did you learn this stuff? :rolleyes:

Also stop spoiling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpaceSphere

SpaceSphere

Posted
Posted

It was absolutely stunning!!!

Of course, there were a few things that weren't quite right.

<HIGHLIGHT TO REVEAL SPOILERS>

The way the astronauts were joking around and improvising while fixing Hubble was unrealistic; in reality any such spacewalk would be scripted down to the second months in advance. And the orbital position of Hubble, the ISS, and Tiangong was obviously wrong. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a little license with the details as long as it is necessary to support the story (which it was and did perfectly). This movie is already set in an impossible world where the Shuttle is still in service but the Chinese Tiangong station is completely assembled, so why not move them into the same orbit while you're at it?

There were also things that were more subtly wrong, which no one seems to be pointing out, like the fact that touching the solar panels on the ISS would likely lead to dangerous electrical shock due to the static charge that tends to accumulate on them (this has been a concern for some real spacewalks). The speed at which Kessler syndrome took hold was also faster than seemed reasonable, and again, it would be impossible to take out so many classes of satellites (communication, GPS, etc.) which in reality are in very different orbits, but once again it served the story so I didn't mind it.

</SPOILERS>

None of this detracted from the movie at all, it still worked as a pulse-pounding survival thriller and a moving metaphorical examination of the human experience. So if you haven't watched 'Gravity' I highly recommend you do, and make up your own mind about it. I mean, come on, we're KSP players, we're like half the target audience for this film!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
loknar

loknar

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think what you just listed as inaccuracies ruin it for me. I won't be able to enjoy the movie at all. That and the annoying screaming from the actress Whatsername.

Some further reading of spoiler posts (notably: Hayoo) lists even more annoying stuff. How can you enjoy seeing this movie while you could spend your precious time at home playing KSS?

I also smell this is another awkward pro-USA anti-china anti-russia movie. In spite of the humiliating space shuttle saga... Please tell me I'm wrong, though.

Edited by loknar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...