SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 04 2014, @03:40PM
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.