| enfant perdus | 08 Oct 2013 6:19 a.m. PST |
Gravity raises some seriously nerdy eyebrows.
link Gentlemen, we are not alone. |
| Coelacanth | 08 Oct 2013 6:38 a.m. PST |
For example, Tyson wrote on Twitter, why was Bullock's hair, "in otherwise convincing" zero-gravity scenes, not floating "freely on her head"? Because Gravity wasn't really filmed in space? Really, that's one of those things that can't be helped. There is a big difference between errors brought on by carelessness or contempt and those caused by the limitations every filmmaker must experience. The other objections are presumably valid, but as they are actually Rocket Science, I have not amassed the qualifications to judge them. Ron |
| Mr Elmo | 08 Oct 2013 7:15 a.m. PST |
Really, that's one of those things that can't be helped. Well, if you can make a movie filled with fake blue people I think you can photoshop some hair. |
| John the OFM | 08 Oct 2013 7:17 a.m. PST |
They are just like grumpy old fart wargamers. They go to the movies LOOKING for things to find fault with. My usual caveat of the whiners composing 0.05% of the audience applies just as well here. |
| Eclectic Wave | 08 Oct 2013 8:19 a.m. PST |
This isn't new. Isaac Asimov complained about 2001:A space Odyssey because when they showed the Discovery spacecraft getting to Jupiter, they had the moons of Jupiter's orbits wrong. Mind you, this is a less then a 2 minute scene, none of the moons are larger then points of light, and this is where what'shisname goes into the 'space warp' and Asimov is looking at moons in the background and figuring out the orbits. Sorry, War gamers have NOTHING on scientists. |
Roderick Robertson  | 08 Oct 2013 8:47 a.m. PST |
My problem with Gravity was the unrelenting disasters. Yes, I understand what they were trying to do, and even the plot points, but come on – disaster after disaster, after disaster, but wait: another disaster! I'm surprised Bullock's character didn't run into some Border-guard militia and get shot… If I hadn't been supporting our local theater, I wouldn't have gone to see it. |
| John the OFM | 08 Oct 2013 8:47 a.m. PST |
Sorry, War gamers have NOTHING on scientists. I would like to see a competition, though.  I will bet that Asimov did not sit in the front row smoking weed.
No, he came with a notebook and an angry attitude. |
| Streitax | 08 Oct 2013 9:11 a.m. PST |
Tyson also pointed out that the stars in Close Encounters big scene were half the starfield reflected to the other side to get a full starfield. It was fixed in the later releases. |
| Ditto Tango 2 3 | 08 Oct 2013 11:01 a.m. PST |
I haven't seen it yet and Tyson RUINED it for me!  
--
Tim
|
| Garand | 08 Oct 2013 12:25 p.m. PST |
And yet Tyson at the end says he enjoyed it. Personally, Tyson is a scientist, and one of the few that are really promoting science in the public sphere, so I expect him to nitpick a little bit, because perhaps someone somewhere will learn something. If you don't really care about the science, and only want the spectacle, then reading Tyson's tweets is probably not for you… Personally Tyson -- along with Michio Kaku -- are as close to personal heroes as I will ever allow… Damon. |
| Eclectic Wave | 08 Oct 2013 1:19 p.m. PST |
"No, he came with a notebook and an angry attitude." Well, at intermission, Asimov ran into Arthur C. Clark and started ranting about how Kubrick was breaking his 3 laws of robotics, at which point Arthur told Asimov to "Strike them with lighting" at which point Asimov settled down to enjoy the rest of the film (Which meant ranting about the moons of Jupiter's orbits). This is all of Asimov's words by the way, he has the story written down in one of his non-fiction science articles. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 08 Oct 2013 1:31 p.m. PST |
This is nothing new. Filmmakers sacrifice scientific realism and put the protagonists into one dangerous situation after another to make the movie more entertaining for moviegoers all the time. I rather see an exciting movie with inaccuracies than a boring movie that's scientifically irreproachable. |
Gunfreak  | 08 Oct 2013 1:43 p.m. PST |
The whole movie is fantacy, you can't go into space, earth is flat resting on turtles. |
 Dan Cyr | 08 Oct 2013 2:18 p.m. PST |
"ONE" turtle, holding up four elephants, who hold up a flat earth. Get it right!!! Dan |
| John the OFM | 08 Oct 2013 5:19 p.m. PST |
Well, at intermission, Asimov ran into Arthur C. Clark and started ranting about how Kubrick was breaking his 3 laws of robotics… Which pretty well sums up Asimov's arrogance. I met him once, but did not stand in line to kiss his … ring. What makes him think that HIS "laws"… Aw, forget it. |
| Streitax | 08 Oct 2013 6:40 p.m. PST |
Asimov started in academia where the First Law is 'The first to publish rules, all others must acknowledge his preeminence or prove him wrong.' So, he wrote the Laws of Robotics and all others must give way. |
| Dan Cyr | 08 Oct 2013 8:25 p.m. PST |
Write the number of books he did, maybe he could afford to be a jerk. The opposite is the loser with no accomplishments that has an ego. Even worse. Dan |
| tkdguy | 08 Oct 2013 11:26 p.m. PST |
Tyson also pointed out that the stars in Close Encounters big scene were half the starfield reflected to the other side to get a full starfield. It was fixed in the later releases. Ditto Titanic. YouTube link |
| AndrewGPaul | 09 Oct 2013 5:09 a.m. PST |
Is it nitpicking, or is it using easily-discussed "errors", shortcuts and the like to lead into a discussion of what actually happens? |
| Smokey Roan | 09 Oct 2013 2:50 p.m. PST |
Why would anyone entertain thoughts about seeing a space movie with Sandra Bullock? (Well, if Christy McCullogh proved anything, stupid women did actually go into space, or at least almost into space) :) |
| Cincinnatus | 09 Oct 2013 4:09 p.m. PST |
I thought the movie was excellent. Great visuals, realistic enough for the average person to grasp the difficulties of working in space, and the story was good enough that the 90 minutes goes by pretty quick. You probably spend 80 of those minutes on the edge of your seat. Not a huge amount of character development but that's not the point. |
