Jump to content


Photo

Gravity

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#26 turtle86

turtle86

    Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else

  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 11 October 2013 - 10:37 PM

Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?


By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor." :)

#27 helpwanted

helpwanted

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4503
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 12 October 2013 - 12:13 AM

By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor."

Because a Red Shirt was always bound to be killed!
(i only learned that from watching Big Bang)

#28 obin robinson

obin robinson

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2645
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2012
  • Loc: League City, TX

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:52 AM

Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?


Why? Because Tyson is a clueless astrophysicist that has never heard of a Payload Specialist and doesn't pay attention to detail.

http://www.newcanaan...eview-of-Gra...

In the dark depths of outer space, Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), a payload specialist on her first mission,


http://en.wikipedia....load_Specialist

Payload Specialists were generally selected for a single specific mission and were chosen outside the standard NASA astronaut selection process. They were not required to be United States citizens, but had to be approved by NASA and undergo rigorous training. In contrast, a Space Shuttle Mission Specialist was selected as a NASA astronaut candidate first and then assigned to a mission.

Payload Specialists on early missions were technical experts to accompany specific payloads such as a commercial or scientific satellite. On Spacelab and other missions with science components, payload specialists were scientists with expertise in specific experiments. The term also applied to representatives from partner nations who were given the opportunity of a first flight on board of the Space Shuttle (such as Saudi Arabia and Mexico), and to Congressmen and the Teacher in Space program.


Just because you have a degree in astrophysics it doesn't mean you know how to pay attention to details. That is the lesson today folks.

obin :lol:

#29 turtle86

turtle86

    Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else

  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 12 October 2013 - 08:32 AM

By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor."

Because a Red Shirt was always bound to be killed!
(i only learned that from watching Big Bang)


You most definitely don't want to be a Red Shirt on Star Trek! :lol:
Of course, that still doesn't quite explain Dr. McCoy's presence among the landing party. Not really much that a doctor can do for a dead Red Shirt!

Unlike the brilliant doctor payload specialist in Gravity, it's funny that Wolowitz got to be a payload specialist on the Big Bang Theory even though he is famously not a "Dr." but just "Mr." Wolowitz! :lol:

#30 helpwanted

helpwanted

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4503
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:59 AM

But Mr Wolowitz did design the toilet on the Space Station! A rather important part!

#31 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14594
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 12 October 2013 - 04:22 PM

Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?


By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor." :)


Hey, what was the Captain doing in the landing party?

#32 rookie

rookie

    Good Night Nurse

  • *****
  • Posts: 3047
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2006
  • Loc: St. Petersburg, FL

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:02 PM

Unlike the brilliant doctor payload specialist in Gravity, it's funny that Wolowitz got to be a payload specialist on the Big Bang Theory even though he is famously not a "Dr." but just "Mr." Wolowitz! :lol:

and branded "Fruit Loop" :lol:

#33 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 4379
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:07 AM

It was a good visual spectacle (and gives a few things to think about, like just how dangerous spaceflight really is), but as a whole, I was kind of disappointed in GRAVITY (even in 3D). In a nutshell, not a lot of story to be had there, which was (other than the rather obvious orbital goofups) probably the biggest problem with the movie. As space movies go, it was definitely inferior to both Apollo 13 and the HBO space series "From The Earth To The Moon". I think that if it had been at an IMAX 3D theater, I would have rather sat through seeing MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION again rather than seeing Gravity one more time. Clear skies to you.


I agree, the story was just too thin to sustain the movie, and the action got repetitious. It was visually stunning, and often suspenseful, but had little substance otherwise.

Clear skies, Alan

#34 turtle86

turtle86

    Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else

  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:56 PM

My wife and I saw the film this afternoon, and we were not disappointed. It is well worth seeing for the stunning visual effects alone, and I would highly recommend paying extra for the IMAX and 3-D. The story line might be simple, but that sure didn't hurt Apollo 13, and it doesn't hurt this film either, as the suspense is often riveting, made all the more so by the superb direction and Sandra Bullock's compelling performance. A big thumbs up.

#35 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2255
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:18 PM

Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?


By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor." :)


Hey, what was the Captain doing in the landing party?


Because he was the best actor. ;)

#36 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2255
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:25 PM

It was a good visual spectacle (and gives a few things to think about, like just how dangerous spaceflight really is), but as a whole, I was kind of disappointed in GRAVITY (even in 3D). In a nutshell, not a lot of story to be had there, which was (other than the rather obvious orbital goofups) probably the biggest problem with the movie. As space movies go, it was definitely inferior to both Apollo 13 and the HBO space series "From The Earth To The Moon". I think that if it had been at an IMAX 3D theater, I would have rather sat through seeing MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION again rather than seeing Gravity one more time. Clear skies to you.


I agree, the story was just too thin to sustain the movie, and the action got repetitious. It was visually stunning, and often suspenseful, but had little substance otherwise.

Clear skies, Alan


The difference is Fiction vs. Non-Fiction. Gravity was never meant to be historical, but they did take the effort to make the HST, STS, ISS, and the space suits look as realistic as they possibly could. Expect to be entertained, not a NASA history lesson, and you will enjoy this action packed movie.

#37 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15549
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 17 October 2013 - 09:59 AM

faacanders wrote:

The difference is Fiction vs. Non-Fiction. Gravity was never meant to be historical, but they did take the effort to make the HST, STS, ISS, and the space suits look as realistic as they possibly could. Expect to be entertained, not a NASA history lesson, and you will enjoy this action packed movie.


No, the difference is between having a good story line and not having one. Babylon 5 played fast and loose with the physics of space travel, but it had a very good story line that worked. Gravity didn't. I could have thought of many ways to make that movie into something more than a typical space disaster movie (ala "Marooned"), elevating the main character into something more memorable. It didn't happen. The movie was OK, but just wasn't what I had hoped it would be because the story line was kind of weak. Clear skies to you.

#38 starbux

starbux

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 477
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Sunnyvale, CA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 06:30 PM

As space movies go, it was definitely inferior to both Apollo 13 and the HBO space series "From The Earth To The Moon". I think that if it had been at an IMAX 3D theater, I would have rather sat through seeing MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION again rather than seeing Gravity one more time. Clear skies to you.


I'm not sure it is really fair to compare a (albeit "hard") science fiction to movies recreating actual historic events. In the case of the latter, the story kind of wrote itself.

Could there have been more story? Absolutely. Yet it does succeed somewhat in its simplicity telling a story entirely in space and keeping the viewer interested while avoiding (for the most part) too many preposterous situations.

I would venture that "Momentum" or "Inertia" would have been a more appropriate title than Gravity.

#39 turtle86

turtle86

    Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else

  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:49 PM


I'm not sure it is really fair to compare a (albeit "hard") science fiction to movies recreating actual historic events. In the case of the latter, the story kind of wrote itself.

Could there have been more story? Absolutely. Yet it does succeed somewhat in its simplicity telling a story entirely in space and keeping the viewer interested while avoiding (for the most part) too many preposterous situations.

I would venture that "Momentum" or "Inertia" would have been a more appropriate title than Gravity.


Both Gravity and Apollo 13 have essentially the same simple plot (returning home safely by way of ingenious improvisations after disaster strikes in space) but I don't hear anyone complaining about Apollo 13 having a simple plot.

Seems to me that space itself was a major "character" in Gravity; a very big part of what the film was trying to do what was put the viewer himself in space to convey what a simultaneously beautiful and scary place it is, a modern version of Wordsworth's notion of the "sublime" on steroids. I think a more cluttered plot would've gotten in the way of that. As it was, I thought the film might've been even better without the extraneous bit about Ryan's dead daughter.

#40 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14594
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 18 October 2013 - 11:50 AM

Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?


By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor." :)


Hey, what was the Captain doing in the landing party?


Because he was the best actor. ;)


Yeah. And, the space babes weren't going to swoon over McCoy.

#41 rockethead26

rockethead26

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3330
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Arizona, USA

Posted 19 October 2013 - 01:53 PM

Just saw the IMAX 3D version with my wife. Spectacular visuals and we both enjoyed the "simple" plot. 3D was really well done and not overused. Loved the one 3D teardrop with the reflection. Sandra Bullock was very believable. My wife almost broke my hand holding onto it a couple of times. I guess I'm glad I'm not a technical space science analyst so I can enjoy a good science fiction movie when it comes along. I feel a bit sorry for those who can't.

#42 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2255
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 19 October 2013 - 02:38 PM

faacanders wrote:

The difference is Fiction vs. Non-Fiction. Gravity was never meant to be historical, but they did take the effort to make the HST, STS, ISS, and the space suits look as realistic as they possibly could. Expect to be entertained, not a NASA history lesson, and you will enjoy this action packed movie.


No, the difference is between having a good story line and not having one. Babylon 5 played fast and loose with the physics of space travel, but it had a very good story line that worked. Gravity didn't. I could have thought of many ways to make that movie into something more than a typical space disaster movie (ala "Marooned"), elevating the main character into something more memorable. It didn't happen. The movie was OK, but just wasn't what I had hoped it would be because the story line was kind of weak. Clear skies to you.


As a kid I enjoyed Marooned in the theaters also.

#43 turtle86

turtle86

    Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else

  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 19 October 2013 - 05:17 PM

Just saw the IMAX 3D version with my wife. Spectacular visuals and we both enjoyed the "simple" plot. 3D was really well done and not overused. Loved the one 3D teardrop with the reflection. Sandra Bullock was very believable. My wife almost broke my hand holding onto it a couple of times. I guess I'm glad I'm not a technical space science analyst so I can enjoy a good science fiction movie when it comes along. I feel a bit sorry for those who can't.


I agree. Even astronauts who've seen the film, and would know better than just about anyone about any technical errors (and indeed pointed some of them out), were still able to enjoy it. Here's astronaut Garrett Reisman's take:

http://www.forbes.co...ronaut-think...

His story about Neil Armstrong at the end is very appropriate to this thread.

#44 faackanders2

faackanders2

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2255
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2011

Posted 21 October 2013 - 11:20 AM

Just saw the IMAX 3D version with my wife. Spectacular visuals and we both enjoyed the "simple" plot. 3D was really well done and not overused. Loved the one 3D teardrop with the reflection. Sandra Bullock was very believable. My wife almost broke my hand holding onto it a couple of times. I guess I'm glad I'm not a technical space science analyst so I can enjoy a good science fiction movie when it comes along. I feel a bit sorry for those who can't.


I agree. Even astronauts who've seen the film, and would know better than just about anyone about any technical errors (and indeed pointed some of them out), were still able to enjoy it. Here's astronaut Garrett Reisman's take:

http://www.forbes.co...ronaut-think...

His story about Neil Armstrong at the end is very appropriate to this thread.


Funny that Neal Armstrong's son said he couldn't watch a space movie with his dad, because his dad would complain about any inacuracy. It's just a fictional movie - enjoy it!

#45 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15566
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 21 October 2013 - 05:37 PM


Funny that Neal Armstrong's son said he couldn't watch a space movie with his dad, because his dad would complain about any inacuracy. It's just a fictional movie - enjoy it!


Right on. I enjoyed the movie and frankly just don't see a downside to watching Sandra Bullock cavorting around in her skivvies. :lol:

#46 turtle86

turtle86

    Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else

  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:32 PM

Right on. I enjoyed the movie and frankly just don't see a downside to watching Sandra Bullock cavorting around in her skivvies. :lol:


One of the astronauts reviewing the film noted that having her cavorting around in her skivvies wasn't realistic, but he otherwise didn't seem to complain too much about it. :lol:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics