Gravity: Can Film Ever Get the Science Right? 438
dryriver writes in with a story lamenting the lack of accurate science in movies. "The relationship between science and science fiction has always been tempestuous. Gravity focuses on two astronauts stranded in space after the destruction of their space shuttle. Since Gravity's US release (it comes to the UK in November) many critics have praised the film for its scientific accuracy. But noted astrophysicist Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, had several issues with the accuracy of Gravity's portrayal of space. Through a series of posts on Twitter, Tyson — who later emphasized that he 'enjoyed the film very much' — highlighted various errors. He noted the Hubble space telescope (orbiting at 350 miles above sea level), the International Space Station (at 250 miles), and a Chinese space station could never be in line of sight of one another. On top of that, most satellites orbit west to east, yet in the film the satellite debris was seen drifting east to west. Tyson also noted how Sandra Bullock's hair did not float freely as it would in zero-gravity. This is arguably not so much an error in physics, but a reflection of the limitations of cinematic technology to accurately portray actors in zero-gravity. That is, of course, without sending them into space for the duration of the film. The Michael Bay film Armageddon is known for its woeful number of inaccuracies, from the space shuttles separating their rocket boosters and fuel tanks in close proximity to each other (risking a collision) and to objects falling on to the asteroid under a gravitational pull seemingly as strong as the Earth's. More than one interested observer tried to work out how big the bomb would have to be to blow up an asteroid in the way demanded in the movie. Answer: Very big indeed. Nasa is reported to have even used Armageddon as part of a test within their training program, asking candidates to identify all the scientific impossibilities within the film."
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever been near a film shoot?
The number of people needed, and the time involved for a typical 15 seconds of video won't be possible in space for another hundred years.
In the mean time, why can't people simply enjoy a film, without trying to pick apart ever millisecond?
What makes the same people eat up LOTR or the Hobbit with total suspension of disbelief, but grouse incessantly about flowing hair?
No, because reality is FUCKING BORING (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you watch a Rocky movie if the boxing were as boring and silly-looking as a real professional boxing match (with most of the opponents time spent hugging each other)? Would you watch Mythbusters if they sent out all their results for months of peer-review? Would you watch House of Cards if almost of of the Senator's free time were spent at boring fundraiser dinners?
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, warp technology makes this point pretty moot in Star Trek. If they lose engines, they're either A) already stopped, B) at warp, thus losing the warp field but keeping the inertia they had in the warp field (which is to say, none) or C) not in range of another unpowered object from which to get a frame of reference... when a powered ship comes across an unpowered ship in Trek, they could both easily be doing a third the speed of light relative to the nearest planet, but at a stop relative to each other.
In short, Star Trek's warp-related physics doesn't break nearly as many real-world physics as it seems to at first glance... most of the time.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes the same people eat up LOTR or the Hobbit with total suspension of disbelief, but grouse incessantly about flowing hair?
Re:Science FICTION (Score:5, Insightful)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
"Damn, that *space realism movie* had some minor/moderate inaccuracies... I was really disappointed [that they didn't spend 500 million on production cost to really film he whole movie in microgravity]."
For space sake... there seems to be no way to please certain people.
If you are a NASA, space-science, space-exploration supporter: There is a time to be scientifically brutal and honest, and a time to sell cars (to borrow the phrase from Steven Spielberg, among others). When something like Gravity gets made, spend 95+% of time lauding the good aspects of the film... less time preening your own scientific ego about how much you know about space.
Re:Don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
If they got the science perfectly right, there would be no film.
I disagree. Actual manned spaceflight is dangerous and damned scary as it is. The scenes with the remains of dead astronauts were just freaky. You didn't need a monolithic cloud of space debris, just a few pieces that cripple the shuttle's windows and heat shield. Then what do you do? Houston says they can't launch a rescue shuttle due to the unknown debris factors so your only choice is to chance a transfer orbit to the ISS using an experimental jetpack. Despite the differences in orbital shapes, IIRC the delta-V required isn't that obscene and probably easily written into the capabilities of an experimental jetpack.
You could cut out 90% of the drama in Gravity, and still have a beautiful, compelling, and downright terrifying movie. It's really too bad they felt the need to overdo it.
Re:I get what he's saying here (Score:2, Insightful)
That was one of the worst parts! They already stopped and were in the same orbit. When he lets go he should have just hovered there. Afterwards he should realize how silly he was and reclip and gently tug on the tether so he could head back.
Obviously, Hollywood wanted to use a cliche "you need to let me go or we'll both die!", except there was no cliff.
There were a lot of bad physics in the movie, more bad than good. I saw "Machete Kills" the night before, and that was more realistic. I'm betting that "Machete Kills again..In Space" will be more realistic as well.
Re:Moo (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess in a movie like LotR it is easy to shut your brain down, or just focus on "how close to the book" it is.
But many SFs simply have so retarded physics errors that it is simply impossible to shut down the brain.
Re:It CAN be done (but not always is a good idea). (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Imagine a movie that features a realistic docking to the ISS -- there's six action-packed hours of orbital maneuvering that just screams "great cinema!" Instead, they fly, they dock, and the story continues - not the accurate science.
Re:Moo (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously you haven't heard of the uncanny valley. A film like Gravity is deeply rooted in reality, so things that differ from reality especially irk people. Films like the Hobbit or LOTR are fantasy from the start and allow the imagination to take over. Almost none of the things in LOTR have a basis in the real world (except allegorically) so it avoids the uncanny valley.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no, you don't! No way in hell am I going to let those fuckers into space. They've voted against funding NASA since the end of the Cold War and have recently shut down NASA (and everything else) entirely. They get to stay here on boring old Earth while the rest of us get to have an awesome party on the ISS.
Are you kidding? Nothing would get NASA funded to adequate levels faster than having congressional lives at stake