What was the last movie you watched?

[Kete]

Gravity

Wow.  Very, very intense.  I've never seen anything like this. I have no idea how they were able to make this movie.

[eegah]

Yeah, GRAVITY is good. But if you are scientifically-minded person like me, you will notice numerous science-related issues. Still very entertaining and awesome 3-D.

I can say with authority that other scientifically-minded people actually found it pretty solid.

And by authority, I mean astronauts: http://www.chud.com/144761/interview-nasa-astronaut-mike-massimino-gravity/

I have a Ph.D. in Physics, a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, and have worked on the space shuttle program, so I think I'm qualified to comment on the scientific inaccuracies in the movie.

If you read the article that you linked, you'll noticed that he's mainly talking about how well they replicated the feeling of working on the Hubble in the shuttle payload bay. Having never been in space, I can't really say for sure, but that seemed pretty realistic to me. It's after bad things start to happen in the movie that things get a bit dicey with physics and orbital mechanics. If you go to badastronomy.com and other science-minded websites, you'll see that they mention some of the physics issues (but don't look until you've seen the movie!).

Inaccuracies aside, it's a really entertaining movie and I highly recommend it. Make sure to watch it in 3-D.

[Kete]

Yeah, GRAVITY is good. But if you are scientifically-minded person like me, you will notice numerous science-related issues. Still very entertaining and awesome 3-D.

I can say with authority that other scientifically-minded people actually found it pretty solid.

And by authority, I mean astronauts: http://www.chud.com/144761/interview-nasa-astronaut-mike-massimino-gravity/

I have a Ph.D. in Physics, a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, and have worked on the space shuttle program, so I think I'm qualified to comment on the scientific inaccuracies in the movie.

If you read the article that you linked, you'll noticed that he's mainly talking about how well they replicated the feeling of working on the Hubble in the shuttle payload bay. Having never been in space, I can't really say for sure, but that seemed pretty realistic to me. It's after bad things start to happen in the movie that things get a bit dicey with physics and orbital mechanics. If you go to badastronomy.com and other science-minded websites, you'll see that they mention some of the physics issues (but don't look until you've seen the movie!).

Inaccuracies aside, it's a really entertaining movie and I highly recommend it. Make sure to watch it in 3-D.

The main complaint of the guy at bad astronomy was

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

the proximity of all the objects. He spent a lot of time explaining it, but the bulk of it was that. Things were too close. The article with the astronaut said the same thing. I said the same thing to my wife after the movie. Most of the other things are a little nitpicky. I did think the same thing about the force pulling Clooney away, but it didn't bother me too much.  Overall, I would say they got so much of the physics right, that it overshadows what they got wrong.

[eegah]

Yeah, GRAVITY is good. But if you are scientifically-minded person like me, you will notice numerous science-related issues. Still very entertaining and awesome 3-D.

I can say with authority that other scientifically-minded people actually found it pretty solid.

And by authority, I mean astronauts: http://www.chud.com/144761/interview-nasa-astronaut-mike-massimino-gravity/

I have a Ph.D. in Physics, a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, and have worked on the space shuttle program, so I think I'm qualified to comment on the scientific inaccuracies in the movie.

If you read the article that you linked, you'll noticed that he's mainly talking about how well they replicated the feeling of working on the Hubble in the shuttle payload bay. Having never been in space, I can't really say for sure, but that seemed pretty realistic to me. It's after bad things start to happen in the movie that things get a bit dicey with physics and orbital mechanics. If you go to badastronomy.com and other science-minded websites, you'll see that they mention some of the physics issues (but don't look until you've seen the movie!).

Inaccuracies aside, it's a really entertaining movie and I highly recommend it. Make sure to watch it in 3-D.

The main complaint of the guy at bad astronomy was

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

the proximity of all the objects. He spent a lot of time explaining it, but the bulk of it was that. Things were too close. The article with the astronaut said the same thing. I said the same thing to my wife after the movie. Most of the other things are a little nitpicky. I did think the same thing about the force pulling Clooney away, but it didn't bother me too much.  Overall, I would say they got so much of the physics right, that it overshadows what they got wrong.

I would hardly call pointing out things in a movie that would not happen in real life AND affect the plot of a movie "nitpicky". This movie's claim to fame is its depiction of being in orbit. If it gets that wrong most of the time, it just becomes an ordinary action movie.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Certainly, some things that could be considered "nitpicky" are things like objects floating in spacecraft not slamming against the wall when engines fire, orbital debris moving with speeds that were hundreds of times too slow, astronauts flying around recklessly in their MMUs to within a few feet of the shuttle and Hubble, radio chatter that is way too casual, or the fact that the astronauts had apparently never met before. These don't really affect the plot, so no huge deal.

However, you'd think they would've paid more attention to orbital mechanics. You've already mentioned two of the biggest scientific flaws (the proximity of the spacecraft and Clooney's bizarre fall), although you sugar-coated the first one. It's more than the spacecraft being too close; in real life, none of those craft are in anywhere near the same orbits. If they got anywhere near each other, they'd be moving so fast that you could blink and miss it. But I guess you could chalk that up to artistic license. As for the Clooney thing, it could've been handled a different way that was more realistic. But how did the debris destroy communication satellites, even though those satellites have orbits that are thousands of miles higher than any of these other craft? Why did they wait until they were passing an object before they propelled themselves toward it? (That's a really bad idea) Why did they feel the need to slam into everything at 30 mph? That's not a good idea when you are in a a flimsy spacesuit and the object you are hitting has sharp edges. Why didn't the shuttle astronauts put on pressure suits when they knew debris was approaching? (I would be surprised if that's not in their procedures, but maybe it's not...). The close-up dynamics also frequently didn't ring true, particularly rotational motion. There should've been much more problems with spinning.

I guess the thing is, these mistakes were constantly happening throughout. If you don't have good physics sense, then you probably don't notice them. But if you do, it's going to take you out of the movie a little bit. Yes, I realize that movies rarely attempt to be accurate. I'm just disappointed that it wasn't more accurate, so I could truly believe that I was there.

That said, sometimes they got it exactly right (particularly during the parachute-ISS sequence). When they did, it was AWESOME.

[Relaxing Dragon]

Yeah, GRAVITY is good. But if you are scientifically-minded person like me, you will notice numerous science-related issues. Still very entertaining and awesome 3-D.

I can say with authority that other scientifically-minded people actually found it pretty solid.

And by authority, I mean astronauts: http://www.chud.com/144761/interview-nasa-astronaut-mike-massimino-gravity/

I have a Ph.D. in Physics, a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, and have worked on the space shuttle program, so I think I'm qualified to comment on the scientific inaccuracies in the movie.

If you read the article that you linked, you'll noticed that he's mainly talking about how well they replicated the feeling of working on the Hubble in the shuttle payload bay. Having never been in space, I can't really say for sure, but that seemed pretty realistic to me. It's after bad things start to happen in the movie that things get a bit dicey with physics and orbital mechanics. If you go to badastronomy.com and other science-minded websites, you'll see that they mention some of the physics issues (but don't look until you've seen the movie!).

Inaccuracies aside, it's a really entertaining movie and I highly recommend it. Make sure to watch it in 3-D.

Oh I know, I was just being a smartass

I personally think this movie got as close to reality as it could get while still working with the compelling scenario it was creating (most accurate since Apollo 13, I wanna say). Movies can only get so real, after all, before sacrifices need to be made in favor of the narrative at hand. Ultimately this movie is still one that creates just the right sort of visceral atmosphere that it'll hook you right in, and it's a stunning technological achievement in the process.

[eegah]

Oh I know, I was just being a smartass

I personally think this movie got as close to reality as it could get while still working with the compelling scenario it was creating (most accurate since Apollo 13, I wanna say). Movies can only get so real, after all, before sacrifices need to be made in favor of the narrative at hand. Ultimately this movie is still one that creates just the right sort of visceral atmosphere that it'll hook you right in, and it's a stunning technological achievement in the process.

Apollo 13 was MUCH more accurate. There were some minor nitpicks (i.e., seeing the full moon and full Earth from the spacecraft at the same time, etc.), but it nothing of the magnitude of Gravity. It had the advantages of filming zero-g in actual zero-g (in the "Vomit Comet"), whereas Gravity was CGI, and being based on a true story so there was only so far that they could deviate from reality.

[Relaxing Dragon]

Yup yup. Apollo 13 is a beast all its own, just like Gravity. I'll stick to them both being fantastic movies in their own ways.

Here's another good (and spoiler-filled) article on the accurate and inaccurate stuff: http://science.time.com/2013/10/01/what-gravity-gets-right-and-wrong-about-space/

[lassieface]

As for the accuracy...from what I've read. It's possible. Incredibly, overwhelmingly unlikely. But theoretically possible.

[eegah]

As for the accuracy...from what I've read. It's possible. Incredibly, overwhelmingly unlikely. But theoretically possible.

Depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about the "triggering event" for the problems, then that is probably a good description. If you are talking about the movie as a whole, then the answer is an emphatic NO. But some things can definitely be treated as artistic license (although I would've preferred that they be more accurate).

[Trekker4747]

Saw "Gravity" some quibbles and positions of various space items aside, a fantastic, fantastic movie. Bullock does a phenomenal job in it and wears spandex shorts very well.

[Quantum Vagina]

Saw "Gravity" some quibbles and positions of various space items aside, a fantastic, fantastic movie. Bullock does a phenomenal job in it and wears spandex shorts very well.

I've heard that it's like her first good dramatic role, which I'm amazed at.

[d00hickey]

Saw "Gravity" some quibbles and positions of various space items aside, a fantastic, fantastic movie. Bullock does a phenomenal job in it and wears spandex shorts very well.

I've heard that it's like her first good dramatic role, which I'm amazed at.

The academy thought she was good enough to win best actress in a leading role for blind side. I still haven't seen it though 

[Kete]

Blind Side wasn't much more than a Hallmark movie.

[Nunyerbiz]

Speaking of sports meeting Hallmark movies...

42

Only have a single complaint about this one...  it's all just a tad vanilla. What really could have been something that aimed high and delivered a deeply emotional, introspective look at overcoming the ugly side of human nature... this movie just sort of picks the low hanging fruit. It's well shot and well acted... Everything you'd expect to see in an inspirational, based-on-a-true-story sports biopic is accounted for... And therein lies the problem, it's everything you'd expect and nothing you won't... If it wasn't for 'nigger' and 'coon' appearing in the dialog a few dozen times, it could have very well been a movie that was made for the Hallmark Channel. That said, Chadwick Boseman does well playing Robinson despite being almost a bit player in his own movie...  because Hollywood isn't going to make a movie about a black guy... It's going to make a movie about a grumpy old white man helping the black guy.... Enter Harrison Ford, easily delivering his best grumpy old man role yet. Alan Tudyk and Christopher Meloni also standout in smaller support roles. 42 was well done from top to bottom, but is a whitewash in many respects... and in the end it still left me wanting.

[eegah]

quibbles...nitpicks...

We really need better physics education in this country...*sigh*