Orbital Inclination? What's that? Gravity (film) spoilerish

[Guardsman Bass]

Attitude or not, it's just a different level of willingness to suspend disbelief. Just because you can do it entirely for this film doesn't mean that everyone else can or should, especially if they have some knowledge of the subject matter.

[Ford Prefect]

Attitude or not, it's just a different level of willingness to suspend disbelief. Just because you can do it entirely for this film doesn't mean that everyone else can or should, especially if they have some knowledge of the subject matter.

I don't know shit about orbital mechanics but had absolutely no doubt that the depiction of space in Gravity would be flawed in some respect. But it didn't actually matter because there was more to the film. Films always get stuff wrong. It's inevitable, films are products of human hands. Like it's one thing to talk about this stuff, it's another to blow off a film on that basis. A lot of us like Star Wars, a film which is only tangential to the laws of physics. Obviously that's a stylistically different film, but the logic is still valid insomuch as it is valid when applied to Gravity (or rather one of Gravity's trailers).

I accept that some people are going to be less engaged with a film because of specialist knowledge. As a lawyer I've come to hate To Kill a Mockingbird - a book/film which in my youth was in part instrumental in my wanting to become a lawyer. That's inevitable, too. But Andras almost certainly hasn't seen this film and he's still writing it off.

Also, notice how only one guy has actually engaged with the information that Andras put up in his first post, with everyone else discussing what is essentially a different topic?

[RogueIce]

I accept that some people are going to be less engaged with a film because of specialist knowledge. As a lawyer I've come to hate To Kill a Mockingbird - a book/film which in my youth was in part instrumental in my wanting to become a lawyer. That's inevitable, too. But Andras almost certainly hasn't seen this film and he's still writing it off.

So wait, you're allowing that specialist knowledge is a reason for people to be less engaged with a film - even hate, to use your own example - but then still mocking him over it?

Guess what: trailers are supposed to sell you on a film. If you don't like what you see in a trailer, you're probably not going to go watch the film itself. And why would you? Why should you?

To give a non-technical example, I watched the trailer and decided I didn't want to see it. Why? Because the impression it gave off was of being a Disaster Movie IN SPACE. Which is fine and all but not something I'd go out of my way, much less spend 12 bucks on a ticket, to see. Am I wrong in "writing off" the film even though I haven't seen it? The movie's publicity materials (this trailer and the TV spots I've seen) have given me an impression of a film that I'm not inclined to go see based on the genre they seem to be invoking; in Andras' case he is not inclined to see it because of the technical details his specialist knowledge says are wrong and which you've acknowledged is a valid reason to be "less engaged" so why shouldn't he "write it off" if he thinks those details are going to keep taking him out of the movie?

Or are we all obligated to go watch the movie before we can decide whether or not we wanted to watch the movie?

Also, notice how only one guy has actually engaged with the information that Andras put up in his first post, with everyone else discussing what is essentially a different topic?

Yes, your thread hijack was successful. Want a medal?

[Ford Prefect]

So wait, you're allowing that specialist knowledge is a reason for people to be less engaged with a film - even hate, to use your own example - but then still mocking him over it?

Yes, that's exactly correct. I've come to hate To Kill a Mockingbird because it presents Atticus Finch as a shining hero lauded by the text for his upstanding morality when he is at best an incompetent that got a man killed. However to have an opinion like this required actually engaging with the material. I'm not saying that he needs to see the movie, or that anyone does, or that it's wrong to decide not to see a movie based on a trailer.

Yes, your thread hijack was successful. Want a medal?

At literally any point you could have chosen to engage with Andras' OP ... but you didn't. Because, like I said, you don't care.

[Guardsman Bass]

Well, since the thread's already off on tangents, I'm curious as to why you think Finch was a fuck-up (I'm not saying that in a negative way - I'm genuinely curious).

I personally tend to have a hard time watching/reading political thrillers, in large part because I studied political science in college.

[Ford Prefect]

Well, since the thread's already off on tangents, I'm curious as to why you think Finch was a fuck-up (I'm not saying that in a negative way - I'm genuinely curious).

You know how Atticus' whole thing is how he's the only guy that will stand up in the racist town and defend Tom Robinson? And how the all white jury convicts Robinson anyway? That could have all been avoided: Atticus could have just petitioned for a change of venue and had the whole matter heard in a place with a less absurdly biased population. He would have gotten away with it too: Judge Taylor is highly sympathetic to Robinson's plight. So either he didn't know or he just didn't do it because wanted the challenge or he wanted to make a point to the townspeople.

Obviously the novel is about the harm caused by prejudice so I understand why Harper Lee didn't think to do this. The problem is that at the same time Atticus Finch is presented as a brilliant, morally upright lawyer, but his actions do not match his reputation.

[Andras]

In addition, to the SAFER comment by the original poster - no, Sandra Bullock shouldn't be wearing one. I was ready to cry foul on it, but look at the STS-125 (the final HST servicing mission) EVA photos and NOBODY is wearing a SAFER. SAFER's are only used for ISS EVA's. Shuttle can retrieve a detached spacewalker. ISS can't.

Thanks, SAFER complaint withdrawn. Still leaves them using a MMU two decades after it's last flight.

[PeZook]

So...?

The shuttle was not part of the fleet, either ; Tiangong isn't up yet ; The Kessler Syndrome was absurdly catastrophic and absurdly fast, the tether scene was physically implausible because both the tether and parachute lines were kept taut somehow.

But the movie is still brilliant, and gets most of its physics right, and the sound and camerawork are just incredible, as is the zero-g.

[Terralthra]

Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist, director of the Hayden Planetarium) tweeted about 10 things the movie did wrong (most of which people here didn't notice), yet still made sure to say he enjoyed the movie, too. Knowing what they did wrong and enjoying the movie aren't mutually exclusive.

For example (and most obviously), nearly everything in Terran orbit orbits west to east. Nearly everything in the movie orbits east to west.

[PeZook]

I didn't notice that, but one of Tyson's complaints was "Why is a medical doctor servicing the Hubble?" which is kinda ridiculous seeing that this is exactly what happened on literally the first Hubble servicing mission.

Plus the movie established her being a genius and actually having experience working in some sort of development lab on medical equipment.

The MMU was also some sort of a prototype they were testing out: why is it even a complaint? If you're going to be anal about it, the movie was obviously placed in some sort of an alternative universe where the Shuttle program lasted until STS-157, using a brand spanking new orbiter (or one from a fleet larger than OTL by at least one orbiter), so what exactly is the problem with a new and improved MMU being present there?

[JLTucker]

I've seen it twice and it's pretty damned brilliant and certainly one of the best movies set in space. One thing I think a lot of people will overlook while they're gushing about the technical aspects or dismissing it because of the inaccuracies is this: the entire ordeal in space is a metaphor for all of the shit life dumps on you. You just have to know when to let go and move on.

The good thing about all of this accuracy stuff is that the director knew it was inaccurate, which is something a lot of directors cannot claim.

This is by far Tyson's most idiotic complaint: "Astronaut Clooney informs medical doctor Bullock what happens medically during oxygen deprivation." Um... she's freaking out, panicking, and not thinking straight?

[PeZook]

And yeah, I am aware of the incredible irony of shrugging my shoulders and going "Well, these are obviously problems so why not complain about them" contrasted with my recent statements

[PeZook]

I've seen it twice and it's pretty damned brilliant and certainly one of the best movies set in space. One thing I think a lot of people will overlook while they're gushing about the technical aspects or dismissing it because of the inaccuracies is this: the entire ordeal in space is a metaphor for all of the shit life dumps on you. You just have to know when to let go and move on.

I loved all those little metaphors. Another one is how Stone is essentially reborn by chosing to leave the comfort and safety of her "womb" (the Soyuz) and take on the danger of space again, rather than lying down to die, and her demeanour and attitude changes entirely after that. Then, after violently riding down the Shenzhou, she emerges from water basically naked, readjusting to gravity while space debris burn overhead.

When you consider it in the context of the birth metaphor, you get this huge vibe about life coming from space, which I can't exactly verbalize

The good thing about all of this accuracy stuff is that the director knew it was inaccurate, which is something a lot of directors cannot claim.

Buzz Aldrin loved it

[JLTucker]

And yeah, I am aware of the incredible irony of shrugging my shoulders and going "Well, these are obviously problems so why not complain about them" contrasted with my recent statements

Haha. I thought the movie was going to suck, myself. I was pleasantly surprise that I liked it.

Indeed, Pezook. It's pretty damned in awesome with its themes. I especially loved the shot of her in the fetal position inside the "womb." Some of the wiring behind her is in the general area of the umbilical cord. It's also cool that Bullock finally gives a decent performance.

[AniThyng]

That prompted me to Google "is gravity sexist". Apparently it encourages damsel in distress stereotypes with the panicky woman and the calmn collected male , who even had to return in a hallucination to save the day.

[PeZook]

I also think it's interesting how people are interpreting Kowalski's intervention in one of three ways:

1. A manifestation of an angel, coming to save her after she admitted to despair and tried to pray.

2. An actual ghost, coming over to help her after he got his wish of remaining in space forever

3. The most obvious one, a hallucination from her subconscious or instinct trying to get her to fight

I actually think all three interpretations are compelling and it speaks well of the movie that they can be argued for.

[PeZook]

That prompted me to Google "is gravity sexist". Apparently it encourages damsel in distress stereotypes with the panicky woman and the calmn collected male , who even had to return in a hallucination to save the day.

You know, I actually agree! Would be nice if this relationship was reversed for once, it's such a trope.

[Academia Nut]

That prompted me to Google "is gravity sexist". Apparently it encourages damsel in distress stereotypes with the panicky woman and the calmn collected male, who even had to return in a hallucination to save the day.

Funnily enough when my girlfriend (who knows a hell of a lot more about feminist philosophy than me and most people) and I watched it, we had the exact opposite reaction (although we both commented that it ironically failed the Bechdel test despite being in our opinion quite feminist positive). Yeah, Clooney was playing the calm, collected male, but

1) He was playing more the calm collected veteran in an occupation that has traditionally been very male dominated and thus it is well within the context of reality that this movie is leaning on that his role would be more likely to be filled by a man than a woman (Note: this does not exactly excuse the gender role selection on its own, but it means that the movie isn't contorting itself to conform to gender roles via nonsensical character selection)

2) The scenes of panic are ones that most men would be shitting themselves in. I don't know about you but being in a chaotic, dizzying spin after being in a crisis situation you are not trained for in the most dangerously hostile environment in existence is worth some brown pants time. Bullock's character Dr. Ryan Stone (note: stated to be a biomedical engineer, not an MD) was in no way having any sort of gendered panic attack and all things considered got over it pretty quick before she even got to the ISS and got to shine on her own. And again, Clooney's character Matt Kowalski was the one to save her because he was the veteran and the one with the prototype MMU. Also, she is an active participant in her own rescue in that despite her perfectly human confusion and terror she still reports her situation and uses her flashlight to help guide him to her location

3) The movie is really about dealing with tragedy (if I have the time when it hits DVD I will probably try to plot scenes to the five stages of grief) and thus I think it becomes extremely pro-feminist that Ryan is a woman. Her character is distinctly female and feminine but she does not really follow the standard tropes in that her behavior really is not informed by her gender. She is strong and capable but these are traits of her character and not her gender. Also, interestingly enough the tragedy in her backstory of the freak accidental death of her daughter does not inform her reasons for space, at least not directly. Usually when you do something like that the character will say something like "I came up here to get away", while in Ryan's case at best you can say that she threw herself into her work afterward as she had nothing else. Since there was no mention of a divorce or the like we can even assume that she has always been a single mother, and that her child was born sometime after she got her PhD, which is quite different from what you usually get.

4) In the angel/ghost/hallucination scene Kowalski doesn't actually save her. He gives her a choice to give up, or to chase after the abstract clue he gives. She has to do everything else for herself before and after that point, and critically she still has to choose for herself whether or not she wants to give up or keep trying.

So yeah, I get the feeling that there's a very real extent of people not knowing what is and is not the damsel in distress trope. The movie is really Ryan's story and she is always an active participant in the entire thing, and even when she is being rescued she is not a plot prize for Kowalski but one character coming to the aid of another.

Also, let me say that scene with the radio in the Soyeuz was a masterfully poignant punch in the gut for someone who has experienced depression.

[Skylon]

1) He was playing more the calm collected veteran in an occupation that has traditionally been very male dominated and thus it is well within the context of reality that this movie is leaning on that his role would be more likely to be filled by a man than a woman (Note: this does not exactly excuse the gender role selection on its own, but it means that the movie isn't contorting itself to conform to gender roles via nonsensical character selection)

Just to note, to date there has been no EVA conducted with two women.

As far as Bullock's fear, Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton were both appropriately scared shitless in various points of the first "Alien" and "Terminator" films - yet they are now seen as two of the strongest examples of tough female characters in the sci-fi genre. Bullock follows a similar arc for a survival film. I'm blanking on examples, but I am sure there are some of male characters being willed to "keep fighting" by delusions of dead female characters as well.

[jollyreaper]

I would say Gravity is the perfect example of a film that is so good you barely notice quibbles. Given that the setting is science fact (real space hardware) those quibbles will tend to jump out. The biggest one is that if anything did go so severely wrong, survivors are dead men floating. A survivable space disaster is a really, really rare thing. There would have been nothing to do for Columbia's astronauts if they had detected the heat shield damage on orbit, for example.

The movie is so visually arresting and so engaging that those quibbles are barely noted in passing. The only quibble that really did bother me was the tether scene. There's no reason for Clooney to be dangling as if over the edge of a cliff. Dramatically, they needed him to sacrifice himself. I was nearly knocked out of the scene because his problem should not have been a problem.

I love they they left sound out of space. While I haven't talked to any non-geeks who have seen it, I have a suspicion that this will be an important factor for the perceived authenticity for them. It separated this movie from pretty much every other cinematic depiction of space, save 2001. The lack of sound makes things feel more alien, outside of the typical movie experience. That combined with those ridiculously long continuous takes! I wondered if there might not be a cut for the entire film.

Best part, there's a kid in the front row and he came in an astronaut costume, helmet and all. That is a proper geek in training.

[Cykeisme]

I accept that some people are going to be less engaged with a film because of specialist knowledge. As a lawyer I've come to hate To Kill a Mockingbird - a book/film which in my youth was in part instrumental in my wanting to become a lawyer. That's inevitable, too. But Andras almost certainly hasn't seen this film and he's still writing it off.

You have to accept that your knowledge of the subject matter in law makes mistakes intolerable, and likewise, someone else's knowledge of space exploration and physics makes the mistakes in Gravity intolerable.

I think Napoleon put it well..

if the movie had someone's car break down in New Mexico and they ended up having to walk to Melbourne to get to safety?

To a hypothetical audience with no knowledge of geography, showing a man walking from New Mexico to Melbourne in twenty minutes is all right. Hearing geography pedants criticize that point is grating for him; it has nothing to do with the plot or characterization!
Meanwhile, an audience with (what I assume is) a common knowledge of where these places actually are would have reactions ranging from rolling their eyes to blurting out a string of expletives.


More relevant to the topic, the areas of knowledge that make Gravity's mistakes glaring are exactly the type that, to a large portion of SDnet's audience, feel exactly like the walk-from-New Mexico-to-Melbourne sort of thing.

[Cykeisme]

The movie is so visually arresting and so engaging that those quibbles are barely noted in passing. The only quibble that really did bother me was the tether scene. There's no reason for Clooney to be dangling as if over the edge of a cliff. Dramatically, they needed him to sacrifice himself. I was nearly knocked out of the scene because his problem should not have been a problem.

This was very bothersome for me as well. Both characters were already at a full stop relative to the station's frame of reference, and yet an unexplained force actually accelerates him away from the station as soon as he releases her hand?
Surely they could have thought of another sequence of events that would (for dramatic purposes) have a similar end result, without making such a blatant violation of reality?

I'm sure that some laymen, without knowing the actual reasoning, would intuitively noticed something wrong with that scene.

[Simon_Jester]

My impression is that they were drifting at low speed relative to the station- and by the time Bullock (I cannot remember the astronaut names so help me) got caught in the parachute shrouds, they had different velocities relative to the station because they'd experienced different forces during the slow-down phase.

So basically, Bullock has a leg caught in the parachute shrouds and is stationary relative to the station. Clooney is still drifting at, say, 1 m/s relative to the station. Bullock realizes that Clooney is still drifting.

Clooney's momentum carries him away from the station until the tether is taut, at which point Bullock and Clooney both have a velocity of, say, 0.6 m/s relative to the station, outbound.* Clooney looks at the parachute shroud tangle holding Bullock in place and concludes that it is not sturdy enough to stop both of them- that the lines around her ankle will untangle and let her go if that much force is exerted on them.

As this is happening, at least one of the loops of parachute cord actually does untangle around her foot- when that line goes taut, and experiences a (large) tension force trying to stop the Clooney-Bullock system from drifting, it slips off Bullock's foot instead. In the process, the Clooney-Bullock system would lose some velocity relative to the station, but not enough- say, they're down to 0.4 m/s.

If this process continues, it will result in the combined momentum of the Clooney-Bullock system carrying both of them into space. Optically this looks like Clooney "dragging" Bullock, because Bullock is the one who is at least loosely connected to 'ground' (the station) while Clooney is at the end of a tether. The only force slowing the system down is acting on Bullock, which keeps the tether taut while Clooney clings to the end furthest from the station. This happens for the same reason that the tether was taut, with Bullock clinging to the end, when Clooney was doing engine burns with his jetpack.

So as more lines uncoil, Clooney unhitches from the tether. Now the parachute cords only have to stop Bullock's momentum to bring her to rest relative to the station- which involves exerting less force, and therefore the tangles of parachute line do not uncoil, and Bullock is brought to a stop.

Had Clooney remained attached, the last loop of parachute line would have slowed them further, but not enough- they'd still have net momentum outbound and be drifting away from the station.

Bullock tugging on the tether line wouldn't have helped because she can't change the net momentum of the Bullock-Clooney system that way, and the fundamental problem is that the parachute cords can't exert enough force to stop the whole system, because that amount of force will cause the tangles/knots to undo themselves.

The only other strategy I can think of would be for Clooney and Bullock to cling together, somehow detach Clooney's bulky jetpack, and throw that in the direction of their line of motion, thus giving them a little more delta-v back in the direction of the station. Which would be a rather desperate idea, and they'd both die if it didn't work.

_________________

*I figure that Clooney plus his suit and jetpack weigh more than Bullock plus her suit, so it isn't 0.5.

[jollyreaper]

The thing is, there's plenty of scenarios in space where a sacrifice of one can save another. There was a cheesy space movie on mst3k with Gene Hackman and marooned astronauts. One of them deliberately killed himself to save on consumables.

Funny thing, my mom and her friends went to see it. She's a retired nurse, no real space knowledge, and she and she said the movie was a great thriller but the scenario preposterous. She noticed things felt wrong though she couldn't say why chapter and verse. I found this amusing. She'll usually comment about medical stuff being wrong in tv and movies but it rarely pulls her out of the story.

I'm still in real admiration of the conviction the crew went into this movie with. They knew the story they wanted to tell and made no compromises. It's satisfying to see that sort of conviction pay off. So much more enjoyable than the movies where it's clear nobody cares.

[PainRack]

That prompted me to Google "is gravity sexist". Apparently it encourages damsel in distress stereotypes with the panicky woman and the calmn collected male, who even had to return in a hallucination to save the day.

Funnily enough when my girlfriend (who knows a hell of a lot more about feminist philosophy than me and most people) and I watched it, we had the exact opposite reaction (although we both commented that it ironically failed the Bechdel test despite being in our opinion quite feminist positive). Yeah, Clooney was playing the calm, collected male, but

1) He was playing more the calm collected veteran in an occupation that has traditionally been very male dominated and thus it is well within the context of reality that this movie is leaning on that his role would be more likely to be filled by a man than a woman (Note: this does not exactly excuse the gender role selection on its own, but it means that the movie isn't contorting itself to conform to gender roles via nonsensical character selection)

2) The scenes of panic are ones that most men would be shitting themselves in. I don't know about you but being in a chaotic, dizzying spin after being in a crisis situation you are not trained for in the most dangerously hostile environment in existence is worth some brown pants time. Bullock's character Dr. Ryan Stone (note: stated to be a biomedical engineer, not an MD) was in no way having any sort of gendered panic attack and all things considered got over it pretty quick before she even got to the ISS and got to shine on her own. And again, Clooney's character Matt Kowalski was the one to save her because he was the veteran and the one with the prototype MMU. Also, she is an active participant in her own rescue in that despite her perfectly human confusion and terror she still reports her situation and uses her flashlight to help guide him to her location

So yeah, I get the feeling that there's a very real extent of people not knowing what is and is not the damsel in distress trope. The movie is really Ryan's story and she is always an active participant in the entire thing, and even when she is being rescued she is not a plot prize for Kowalski but one character coming to the aid of another.

Also, let me say that scene with the radio in the Soyeuz was a masterfully poignant punch in the gut for someone who has experienced depression.

I also found it funny that one of the critique is "why is Clooney telling a doctor about carbon deprivation."

Let's recap.

Ryan has had 6 months of astronaut training. She's a noob in space. Clooney has 'done it all', a veteran. When shit happens, you forget EVERYTHING. The whole scenes was essentially the veteran astronaut talking his mouth off so as to get things done, to show the way, and there is no reason that Sandra didn't know what was going on, once Clooney clued her in.