Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[bknight]

Thanks

[DD Brock]

Indeed I saw many inconsistencies with real actions in the movie, I was no impressed and really didn't care for it.

On the other hand, the visuals were gorgeous, even if a little inaccurate.

The CGI people have something called the "uncanny valley" for computer-generated humans, and I think there's something like it for science fiction -- especially space travel. When you get the visuals as good as Gravity got them, then the remaining errors (notably those in physics) become far more glaringly obvious.

I can make up a bowl of popcorn and enjoy Star Wars and Star Trek as much as anybody because there's no pretense of realism. But Gravity drove me nuts because it did pretend. But not only did it get the physics very wrong, it also had actors who behaved nothing like real astronauts.

Yeah, but she was in her skivvies!!

OK, I'll stop now, lol!

[bknight]

Yeah, but she was in her skivvies!!

OK, I'll stop now, lol!

[sidetrack alert]
But Sigourney Weaver in Alien was way better IMO[/sidetrack alert]

EDIT: Corrected movie name

[DD Brock]

Yeah, but she was in her skivvies!!

OK, I'll stop now, lol!

[sidetrack alert]
But Sigourney Weaver in Aliens was way better IMO[/sidetrack alert]

No argument from me.

[ka9q]

So tell me what "laws" of physics were violated in the movie?  Because it looks like a typical movie production from NASA.

Just one among many: she points a Soyuz spacecraft at a Chinese space station (which conveniently is in the same orbit plane), pushes the button and goes there.

That is simply not how orbital mechanics works.

[gillianren]

Learn why your god is called gravity,  Could the letter "G" in the masonic symbol stand for gravity?  Is it a coincidence that quite a few of the astronauts were masons?

No, you twit, it stands for "God."  Or "Grand Architect of the Universe," which to the Masons is the same thing.  Sometimes considered to stand for "Geometry," because the Masons believe that understanding the rules of the universe is understanding the Mind of God.

[onebigmonkey]

Typical elitist response from a globe earth cult member.   So tell me what "laws" of physics were violated in the movie?  Because it looks like a typical movie production from NASA.

You're the superior intellect around here, you tell us.

In fact tell us anything that you can to support your position, because all you've done so far is post adolescent sneers and proclaim your own genius.

[JayUtah]

That is simply not how orbital mechanics works.

All of that was cringe-worthy.  I'd honestly rather see the Millennium Falcon blatantly ignoring all known laws of physics (and kicking ass doing it) than something trying to be real, claiming to be real, but then just pandering to the lay expectations of the audience.  Were it just a few artistic liberties taken to move the story along (a la Kubrick in 2001) I wouldn't mind.  But when the lion's share of the plot and conflict revolve around badly cobbled-up space mechanics, then it's just a bad story.

But yes, impressive visuals.  By the same token, even in Apollo 13, the means used to achieve the appearance of microgravity usually telegraphs itself.  After working in both engineering and theater for many years, it's often hard to watch the antiseptically storyboarded scenes that try very hard to mix up the techniques.  Gravity was the first film where I could largely ignore how the effects were done and just watch the story.

[JayUtah]

...because all you've done so far is post adolescent sneers and proclaim your own genius.

Which is why LunarOrbit banned him.  And good riddance.

[bknight]

...because all you've done so far is post adolescent sneers and proclaim your own genius.

Which is why LunarOrbit banned him.  And good riddance.

Amen, brother.

[ka9q]

Spoiler warning.

A few fantastical elements in Gravity were perfectly fine as dramatic license, e.g., Clooney's temporary reappearance in the Soyuz. That simply showed her state of mind, i.e., that she was hallucinating.

But the orbital mechanics was just plain terrible. So was much of the behavior and dialogue of the astronauts.

And don't get me started on the orbital debris. It's far less dense and moving far faster, usually many times the speed of a rifle bullet, which means a single tiny object is enough to kill you; you don't need the huge swarms depicted. You generally don't see a rifle bullet coming either.

[nomuse]

So why I wonder does The Martian seem to get a pass? I mean -- we recognize the errors and point them out, but there's a lot more flavor of forgiveness in respect to that movie.

(The errors aren't just in the screen translation -- I sat down and read the book and he fluffs breathing on mixed gasses so badly there I have to wonder what the heck he did with his research materials to get it that confused).

Is it that for a film like "Gravity" the approach can be summed up as, "Let's give the viewers a spectacle, now let's cobble up whatever science seems to work and ignore it when it gets in the way of the visuals we already decided on," whereas The Martian was, "Here's an interesting science problem; let's see where it goes?"

[ka9q]

So why I wonder does The Martian seem to get a pass?

I wouldn't say I gave it a pass, but I do give him a lot of credit for trying.

Yeah, he messed up on the breathing gases, the pressure of the Martian wind, and the use of what looked like polyethylene sheeting to cover a ~2m hole against a 14 psi pressure difference. (I just saw the Mythbusters episode in which they (eventually) lift a car with a vacuum cleaner.)

But again, at least he tried.

[LunarOrbit]

I know some people might feel that I took too long to ban him, but I try to find the right balance between "insta-ban" and "all the other members are getting angry because I haven't banned him yet".

I'm not going to ban someone the instant they post something that might be considered troll-like. There can be a fine line between a sincere belief and a phoney belief that is only intended to provoke anger. I am still not sure whether he really believes that the Earth is flat or not, and if he was actually willing to discuss it properly I would be more than willing to allow it.

[bknight]

Spoiler warning.

A few fantastical elements in Gravity were perfectly fine as dramatic license, e.g., Clooney's temporary reappearance in the Soyuz. That simply showed her state of mind, i.e., that she was hallucinating.

But the orbital mechanics was just plain terrible. So was much of the behavior and dialogue of the astronauts.

And don't get me started on the orbital debris. It's far less dense and moving far faster, usually many times the speed of a rifle bullet, which means a single tiny object is enough to kill you; you don't need the huge swarms depicted. You generally don't see a rifle bullet coming either.

Since I am hard of hearing, I missed the origin of the debris field that the hit them.