I read once that the makers of the film Inception put Ellen Page's hair in a tight bun in the hotel sequence so they wouldn't have to figure out how her hair should move in zero-gravity.
here is a discussion about some movie physics flaws;
It is funny that the closer a movie gets to looking real, and being faintly plausible, the more attention is paid to the mistakes it makes.
A lot of the people nit-picking Gravity are, I bet, be huge fans of many other sci-fi movies that have 100% patent nonsense as science. So for example while I enjoyed Inception, I would not even think for a millisecond in what ways the science part of the "fi" may be screwed up because the whole setup is ludicrous.
Who can name a sci-fi movie that wasn't shot through with magic masquerading as science? Moon? Blade runner maybe.. hard to think of more.
i can't speak for those other movies, but i think gravity could have been more authentic and just as dramatically appealing without breaking so many laws of physics. i just don't want to go into detail and spoil it for others reading here, and while I did get an "A" in high school physics and geometry, that's about as far as my education on the subject went.
chemistry and calculus - those are what ruined my GPA back then *sigh*
maybe, but it is easy to monday morning quarterback a movie I'm sure before production many people would say it was impossible to even attempt without lots of chaotic cuts and cheating (the Transformers style). Many shots are continuous takes and require camera movements planned out on a computer and executed on a robotic arm, screw peter jackson this was quite an adventurous and a high risk film project.
I don't think it is a sci-fi movie though. Unless Titanic is also Sci-Fi
The only physics thing that took me out of the mood, was confusing or possibly just wrong, was:
When Dr Ryan Stone is tangled in the parachute cords from the ISS and holding grimly onto Kowalski, he says she must let go to save herself. He must have stopped moving so where was the tension coming from? They could have figured something else out to have him make the ultimate sacrifice here, perhaps the escape capsule was single seat, or maybe he could be shown floating just out of grabbing distance and helpless, telling Stone not to waste her last oxygen trying to get him. Pretty much anything else but dangling on a tight tether
The other physics issues such as the convenient location of everything all on roughly the same orbital plane, didn't bother me.
Best delivered line in the movie IMO: I hate space.
I was so impressed with the director I purchased Children of Men on itunes, which I had missed in 2006 for some reason, and watched that last night. Another winning movie with his trademark super long one-take shots.
I saw the movie Friday in 3-D and while I won't call it the best sci-fi ever I will say it was an amazing experience. I usually don't like disaster films much and only let a few of them skate by based on other elements of the film (Sunshine for instance). Gravity approaches the genre with a good deal of respect and dignity. The scenes out in space are breathtaking. You just have to experience it on the biggest screen you can to really know what I'm talking about. And try and see it in Real3D with the best sound system available (the Atmos sound system if it's in driving distance). Renting this movie won't do it justice on most home systems.
With such high expectations of course I noticed imperfect details regarding zero G and some science stuff. There were times I can tell what's CG and what's physically there based on how it moved. Sandra Bullock's hair didn't float (and just having it cut short wasn't enough for me). All of this doesn't matter. I remember back in the 80's watching sci-fi with patchy blue screen effects and what have you, but I still really enjoyed the movies. My point is you can pick and pick at every, EVERY sci-fi movie and find flaws. If that makes you conclude the film is inferior then congratulations posing on your high horse. At the end of the day if you are moved, thrilled, entertained it doesn't matter how the film got you there.
For those of you thinking this movie is a cookie cutter emergency and rescue film you are off the mark. I haven't seen any film approach this kind of scenario even close to how Gravity does. If you call yourself a sci-fi fan (especially "hard science" fiction) you really should go out and see it.
They're both incredible movies, the visuals especially, but I did not like the 3rd act of Sunshine. At all.
Europa Report is also highly recommended from me if you liked Sunshine. In fact, if Sunshine is your favorite movie, Europa Report is a must watch for you.
Are they calling it a Sci Fi movie? Isn't most of the tech based on science fact? I haven't seen it but from the trailers it looks like the technology is currently to what we have and things we've done before and continue to do in space, well except there is no shuttles anymore. Plus we've seem female astronauts in space with their hair all over the place on TV before and other video showing no gravity.
Maybe thats why some people are very critical of the science part of the movie because its real stuff but not obviously filmed in space. Maybe like watching the Dukes of Hazzard when the car jumps and lands and its obvious it got major front end damage but the next scene its fine riding down the road. If it is based on real stuff it matters more that its accurate I guess. Whereas a true Sci Fi movie you suspend some beliefs.
I'm not sure who is calling it sci-fi, I'm not even sure the director has used those words in an interview - other to deny that a genre defines his movie.
No, it does not make one think of Get Smart or Dukes of Hazzard when you watch it. I don't think anyone in the theatre thought about floating hair especially as she wears it very short, and is extremely busy during the few scenes where she isn't in a suit.
I don't really remember Apollo 13 getting heat for science errors, or the errors it had taking people out of the moment. Apollo 13 arguably had more than Gravity (just to name one of many: roaring jets, in a scene in vacuum from outside the capsule).
I doubt anyone can name a single "high science" movie not riddled with inaccuracies. If you benchmark it closely. The key is not to have the shotcuts cause problems for your immersion. If her hair had to float, or the orbits had to be 100% realistic, there would be no movie because when they make zero-g movies on the vomit comet all the shots are 20 seconds or less by definition and with only one debris hit, there would be no story unless you add in aliens.
BTW The other big movie on at the moment, Captain Phillips, despite being based on a true story is apparently so sanitised for the sake of entertainment that it created a hero out of a captain reviled by his crew. Now that is the sort of mistake that can totally ruin a movie!
The fire on the ISS provided more than enough threat. The Soyuz's lack of fuel could just as easily have been blamed on the first hit, or just... well... Russia.
that's true. Tapping on the fuel gauge was a bit cliche. She could have discovered engine damage or something. I guess the temptation to link the predictability and periodicity of orbit to the re-occurrence of disaster was just too great especially when 99% of the audience would buy it - at least until they got home to look it up.
Saw this last night in IMAX 3D and wow! I'm glad I listened to you guys here. Amazing experience for sure and if it's keeps the single IMAX slot again this weekend, I'm going again and bringing anyone I can. I caught myself with my mouth open a few times in the "edge of your seat" mode. Also intinctively realized I was flinching and "dodging" debris as it flew at me. Definitely the most immersed I've been in a long time to a movie and THE most for the 3D aspect.
Sadly, anyone not seeing this in theaters in 3D will not get the full effect. As others stated this is, for sure, a must see theater movie.
Also, I really liked Children of Men but didn't realize the same guy did it unitl I reread this thread this morning. Awesome.
I loved it too. Most of the articles I've read that nit pick do state that it got a lot more right than it got wrong. The actors also got training with NASA astronauts and it did get their seal of approval.
I used my scene points to try the 3D D-Box experience (same points usage to see any movie, in any theatre, 3D, AVX or whatever). I did find that the movie over all had this surreal feel to it. I'm not sure if that's just because of the presentation of the movie or of the movement of the D-box made a difference. The one thing about the D-Box is it had a gentle sway for the entire movie to give the effects of weightlessness during the very quiet / still scenes. My wife who is prone to these things says she felt a little sea sick after the movie was over.
Not the best ever movie I've scene but definitely a highly recommended for theatre viewing for sure.
By third act, which part did you mean? I actually just watched it last week so it's fairly fresh in my mind.
Sorry, I missed this question somehow.
The part where they make contact with Icareus I and find Pinbacker who's turned into a religious psychotic imbecile.
The film went from "most beautifully shot and edited sci-fi epic in decades, with the best soundtrack EVER" to "ridiculous slasher flick in space." It ruined the entire ending.
The movie built up to a psychological suspense that was so intense I couldn't help feeling extremely disappointed.
I couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to accept a highly trained astronaut would suddenly become a religious psycho who thinks his job is to ensure humanity's demise.
Nope.
Europa Report had a twist ending that was more fitting in my opinion, but that is subjective.
I watched it in IMAX 3D and I liked it. My Wife liked it too and she was the one that insisted on IMAX 3D. We would have seen it a week or so earlier but IMAX 3D was sold out so we watched Captain Phillips instead (which was "Meh" IMO).
Anyway there were some physics issues if i recall correctly. Also, if I recall they were in space for some time before the accident so when she got back to earth I have a bit of a time believing she could have swam effectively do to atrophy. Im just thinking she would have likely drowned.
True enough but swimming is a great workout. It does take effort. It looked like she hit bottom. She would have had to swim up and then across while she could hardly stand and walk. People don't lazily put their hands behind their heads and effortlessly float across the english channel they swim it expending energy and greater effort,....buoyancy can work in your favor but it won't do the work for you. Atrophy due to the absence of gravity means she should have been in trouble.
Astronauts train under water but that doesn't mean its the same thing as a weightless environment. Aerospace engineers probably want to do everything they can to keep their astronauts out of the water after reentry.
I'm thinking a splashdown capsules designed to land in water should be equipped with flotation devices. Also, it shouldn't take on water and if it did it wouldn't have survived re-entry very well in the first place. Also collisions inside earth atmosphere with parts of the craft that could damage the capsule before splashdown should be extremely unlikely.
wow Oct, of all the technical reaches this movie makes, you certainly found IMHO the least disturbing one - LOL
I was referring to the end of the movie and the last one is often the easiest to remember. I'm sure there are bigger issues overall but this was not the only one I mentioned. I believe I mentioned some physics issues as well.
This is basically what I left the theater talking about with my Wife though. I can't get too technical with her either. I would have to see the movie again though to rattle off everything that was skewed,....
However, I'm not trying to pick apart the movie either. Overall I liked it.
I completely understand where you're coming because as soon as I saw that scene I thought the same thing as you. Not only does she swim to the shore, she stands up and walks if I remember correctly.
I thought there was no way she could have done that.
She does walk? I seem to remember her laying in the mud looking buggered and laughing/crying.
She wasn't an astronaut up there for weeks on the space station. I don't think walking is a problem for the shuttle crew they seem to climb out and pose pretty well.
Obviously the whole series of events is unrealistic taken in its entirety but if you've made it through the movie I don't think shucking off space suit in order to better float to the surface is so big a deal.
Actually I thought she was going to fight a crocodile.