Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Wired Considers Gravity Film vs Science Balance

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday March 04 2014, @01:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the Newton's-Apple dept.

tlezer writes:

"With seven Academy Awards, Gravity represents a unique opportunity for NASA PR. However, they have to balance 'a broad public interest in space and space exploration' with the many 'scientific errors made in the name of artistic license.' Wired examines the choices made by the filmmakers, and have supplemented their article with a respectful collection of tweets under the hashtag #RealGravity, including some stunning images."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Wired Considers Gravity Film vs Science Balance | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 15 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Boxzy on Tuesday March 04 2014, @02:29AM

    by Boxzy (742) on Tuesday March 04 2014, @02:29AM (#10399) Journal

    ruined the movie for me. It's a backpack, not a spacecraft!

    --
    Go green, Go Soylent.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by velex on Tuesday March 04 2014, @04:52AM

    by velex (2068) on Tuesday March 04 2014, @04:52AM (#10441) Journal

    There were lots of things that were implausible, particularly how all everything just happened to be in convenient distance (but just far enough away to build tension) of the ISS.

    I was just glad to watch a sci-fi that didn't involve lasers that move slower than light that you can see being fired by ships that maneuver like airplanes or else god-like aliens.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 04 2014, @03:40PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday March 04 2014, @03:40PM (#10687)

      Screw that. I'd rather watch sci-fi that involves your slower-than-light lasers and god-like aliens and other such stuff. At least with that kind of sci-fi, you know it's not real, and really isn't attempting to be too real, so you can accept a bunch of plot devices like warp drives and phasers.

      With movies like "Gravity", "Mission to Mars", etc., they're set in the present day (or very close) and purport to be very realistic, when in fact they're more fantastical than LotR, since they completely ignore the basic laws of physics.

      If I'm going to watch a movie that ignores physics, I'd rather it not involve the present day or look realistic in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday March 04 2014, @05:49AM

    by cubancigar11 (330) on Tuesday March 04 2014, @05:49AM (#10462) Homepage Journal

    ... the MMU... is a backpack, not a spacecraft!

    I thought that was SAFER [wikipedia.org].

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday March 04 2014, @02:40PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday March 04 2014, @02:40PM (#10649)

    The magic MMU fuel reserve wasn't the problem for me as much as the cavalier way it was being used as a toy in the opening sequences. Astronauts do not fuck around and go for a joyride ever, much less on a spacewalk.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh