Internet Gravity, space movie directed by Alfonso Cuaron. Trailer up!
- Thread starter Ark
- Start date
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
His tweet that medical doctors can't become astronauts isn't correct however. Story Musgrave was a physician and not only flew in space, but flew on STS-61!
Last edited:
JonnyBGoode
Sky Marshal
I think what he meant was that her particular specialty was medicine, not mechanics, and that a different sort of specialist would have been sent up to do technical repair work. Not that a doctor couldn't be an astronaut.
PhantomCruiser
Wanderer
Story was also pretty handsy with Hubble, IIRC.
Quick_Nick
Passed the Turing Test
Neil DeGrasse Tyson liked the movie. He took notes, tweeted them, and then news sites stuck on the title "Tyson hates Gravity" or whatever else. 
Face
Well-known member
Neil DeGrasse Tyson liked the movie. He took notes, tweeted them, and then news sites stuck on the title "Tyson hates Gravity" or whatever else.
Without context, this title would be actually pretty funny. Don't you hate gravity too, if you slip and hit the floor with your nose?
orb
New member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 14,020
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
The Space Review: Gravity and reality
JonnyBGoode
Sky Marshal
You know who else hates gravity...
Izack
Non sequitur
Neil DeGrasse Tyson liked the movie. He took notes, tweeted them, and then news sites stuck on the title "Tyson hates Gravity" or whatever else.
One would think anyone would love gravity and never want to leave it behind after watching this movie.
statisticsnerd
Active member
Same here. The visuals were absolutely breathtaking in 3-D. I'm afraid of heights, and I actually felt somewhat nauseous when Earth was in the background!
I loved seeing the Hubble, ISS, and the Chinese station. The fact that they were all close to each other in the movie didn't bother me. It's a work of fiction and isn't meant to be over-analyzed for realism.
The storyline and acting were top notch. However, what I liked best is that it puts the manned space program back into the minds of everyday Americans.
I'd give this a solid 9/10, only missing one point because of the obvious technical issues we have to overlook.
---------- Post added 10-10-13 at 01:48 AM ---------- Previous post was 10-09-13 at 02:31 AM ----------
FYI, there's a space-themed movie coming out next year as well.
Interstellar
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_2
Quick_Nick
Passed the Turing Test
NdGT is a treasure.
80mileshigh
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 365
- Reaction score
- 258
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Melbourne
- Website
- eightymileshigh.wordpress.com
I saw this earlier in the week in 3D at IMAX. I went in with mixed expectations - I was a little put off by the trailer, but I love Cuarón's earlier Children of Men.
Watching It felt an awful lot like playing a computer game, but what sort of computer game would put real-world space stations on the same orbital plane just to make the transfer easier ... ?
It looks awesome. Whether or not this can balance the clunky dialogue and the fact that the film has no dynamic range, is probably up to what you want from a cinema going experience. I walked away a bit exhausted by the constant action and disappointed there wasn't a deeper story, but appreciating the effort they'd gone to, to get so much right.
As far as people here are concerned - I'd say If you're a space enthusiast you should just go and see it on the biggest screen you can find - real-world spacecraft have never been depicted on screen like this before.
Watching It felt an awful lot like playing a computer game, but what sort of computer game would put real-world space stations on the same orbital plane just to make the transfer easier ... ?
It looks awesome. Whether or not this can balance the clunky dialogue and the fact that the film has no dynamic range, is probably up to what you want from a cinema going experience. I walked away a bit exhausted by the constant action and disappointed there wasn't a deeper story, but appreciating the effort they'd gone to, to get so much right.
As far as people here are concerned - I'd say If you're a space enthusiast you should just go and see it on the biggest screen you can find - real-world spacecraft have never been depicted on screen like this before.
4throck
Enthusiast !
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,502
- Reaction score
- 1,008
- Points
- 153
- Location
- Lisbon
- Website
- orbiterspaceport.blogspot.com
Saw it :thumbup:
First, it's a really good movie, and solid sci-fi. Everything depends on the usage of technology and logic. Characters are OK, and the psychological part is well portrayed.
9/10, just because 2001 deserves 10/10 (larger scope and a greater challenge for the state of the art at the time).
The classic sci-fi themes are all in Gravity: confrontation with the unknown, pushing to the limit - both physical and technical-, the meaning of life, why explore, etc, etc.
Visually it's completely realistic (for a movie). They got the computer interfaces right (at least for me).
And you get to see through the Vizor. That has blown me away as far as realism goes. She controls the Soyuz using the Vizor and the lateral viewports, just as we know it should be.
The russian part of ISS is also well recreated. Basicly, the only changes to real hardware are justified by the story and artistic license.
Any Orbiter fan MUST see this, and disregard any "it's scientifically wrong" comments. It's not a documentary, it's not a physics lesson.
It's as real as James Bond, and that is considered as spy / action movie, not phantasy.
If all the misconceptions about space (mostly wrong) could be reduced to what's shown in "Gravity" (mostly correct) I'd be very happy.
First, it's a really good movie, and solid sci-fi. Everything depends on the usage of technology and logic. Characters are OK, and the psychological part is well portrayed.
9/10, just because 2001 deserves 10/10 (larger scope and a greater challenge for the state of the art at the time).
The classic sci-fi themes are all in Gravity: confrontation with the unknown, pushing to the limit - both physical and technical-, the meaning of life, why explore, etc, etc.
Visually it's completely realistic (for a movie). They got the computer interfaces right (at least for me).
And you get to see through the Vizor. That has blown me away as far as realism goes. She controls the Soyuz using the Vizor and the lateral viewports, just as we know it should be.
The russian part of ISS is also well recreated. Basicly, the only changes to real hardware are justified by the story and artistic license.
Any Orbiter fan MUST see this, and disregard any "it's scientifically wrong" comments. It's not a documentary, it's not a physics lesson.
It's as real as James Bond, and that is considered as spy / action movie, not phantasy.
If all the misconceptions about space (mostly wrong) could be reduced to what's shown in "Gravity" (mostly correct) I'd be very happy.
Last edited:
cljohnston
New member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 248
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Website
- myspace.com
Saw it at Grauman's Chinese in IMAX 3D, and the visuals were just as stunning as everybody's said.
Inaccuracies about orbital mechanics aside, here were some quibbles of my own:
• The dialogue had that odd quality that comes about when a non-native English speaker creates an English-language film (examples: The Legend of 1900, Upside Down, etc.)
• Press releases state that the Cuarons had studied thousands of NASA photographs (which they matched perfectly!), but it seemed to me that they never listened to any mission audio, since the comms didn't sound remotely like anything I've heard all those years watching Shuttle missions via NASA-TV.
Those long stories Kowalski would 'launch' into, for instance, would never happen. (I'm pretty sure)
• I feared for their retinas every time they looked straight into the Sun without flipping down their gold-coated sun visors.
• When Stone went outside the Soyuz in the Orlan, I couldn't understand what she was doing, because she didn't appear to be trying to cut the parachute shrouds away from the antenna they were snagged on, but rather going after something under the torn insulation on the reentry module with a torque wrench. Whuh?
Inaccuracies about orbital mechanics aside, here were some quibbles of my own:
• The dialogue had that odd quality that comes about when a non-native English speaker creates an English-language film (examples: The Legend of 1900, Upside Down, etc.)
• Press releases state that the Cuarons had studied thousands of NASA photographs (which they matched perfectly!), but it seemed to me that they never listened to any mission audio, since the comms didn't sound remotely like anything I've heard all those years watching Shuttle missions via NASA-TV.
Those long stories Kowalski would 'launch' into, for instance, would never happen. (I'm pretty sure)
• I feared for their retinas every time they looked straight into the Sun without flipping down their gold-coated sun visors.
• When Stone went outside the Soyuz in the Orlan, I couldn't understand what she was doing, because she didn't appear to be trying to cut the parachute shrouds away from the antenna they were snagged on, but rather going after something under the torn insulation on the reentry module with a torque wrench. Whuh?
I have seen the movie in 3D..
Beautiful scenery and realistic view of Earth was the main reason I spent almost my daily income to go to cinema..
I knew there will be some mistakes but some of them just iritated me..
ISS, Tiangong and Hubble few miles from each other, MMU with enough fuel for TLI, opening hatches like they are doors in your house, exiting suit in matter of seconds with no cooling layer beneath, and that hatch on soyuz (??) also flight manuals that look like those child papers to paint them, flying spacecraft like it is go-kart or something and ofc that reentry from Tiangong and detaching while beeing ablaze in fire.. :idk:
Also I did not get what was the force driving Clooney away from her?And how the hell did he manage to find her in dark yust by radio and flashlight? :shrug:
But all those things aside what iritated me the most in movie is that I think NASA would never let person without experience and sense of duty and chain of order up there.
Sandra behaves like paranoid goat.
Anyway worth watching cause of outstanding view of earth and spacecrafts and stations. :thumbup:
Beautiful scenery and realistic view of Earth was the main reason I spent almost my daily income to go to cinema..
I knew there will be some mistakes but some of them just iritated me..
ISS, Tiangong and Hubble few miles from each other, MMU with enough fuel for TLI, opening hatches like they are doors in your house, exiting suit in matter of seconds with no cooling layer beneath, and that hatch on soyuz (??) also flight manuals that look like those child papers to paint them, flying spacecraft like it is go-kart or something and ofc that reentry from Tiangong and detaching while beeing ablaze in fire.. :idk:
Also I did not get what was the force driving Clooney away from her?And how the hell did he manage to find her in dark yust by radio and flashlight? :shrug:
But all those things aside what iritated me the most in movie is that I think NASA would never let person without experience and sense of duty and chain of order up there.
Sandra behaves like paranoid goat.
Anyway worth watching cause of outstanding view of earth and spacecrafts and stations. :thumbup:
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
I'd argue she doesn't act any more paranoid than someone would when the space shuttle and ISS both just got destroyed completely and her entire crew killed. You don't train to be the sole survivor of that.
SolarLiner
It's necessary, TARS.
Argh, have to wait 'till 23 for here in France... I just can't wait anymore!
4throck
Enthusiast !
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,502
- Reaction score
- 1,008
- Points
- 153
- Location
- Lisbon
- Website
- orbiterspaceport.blogspot.com
Gravity is not set in our universe. It's exactly the same as James Bond or Mission Impossible. Things are realistic, and close to their real life counterparts, but they don't necessarily behave the same.
That is obvious because the show the past Shuttle and the future Tiangong station, all operating at the same time and in similar orbits. In reality that would be odd to say the least.
Once you get it, the movie works, even if you notice differences from our reality.
(And she was unscrewing the parachute cables from the Soyuz return capsule...)
Last edited:
Cras
Spring of Life!
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 2,215
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.youtube.com
Oh please don't make me gag.
