just brew it! wrote:TBH the part that bugged me the most was the realization that there was zero chance of the Hubble, ISS, and Tiangong all being in orbits which would make the events of the movie possible.
Black Applesauce wrote:Or when they reached the ISS, shouldn't the debris already have hit it multiple times, not just when they got there.
Terminator 2 was FULL of plot holes, didn't stop it from being a great movie that has gone on to be a classic. Although the director has stated that the orbit issue wouldn't happen in real life, without it the movie doesn't happen. I guess they could have used an orbiting meteor shower? For as much as they got the orbits wrong, they did get a lot of the other smaller stuff right.Black Applesauce wrote:The perfectly aligned orbits was another.
Sargent Duck wrote:Black Applesauce wrote:The perfectly aligned orbits was another.
Terminator 2 was FULL of plot holes, didn't stop it from being a great movie that has gone on to be a classic. Although the director has stated that the orbit issue wouldn't happen in real life, without it the movie doesn't happen. I guess they could have used an orbiting meteor shower? For as much as they got the orbits wrong, they did get a lot of the other smaller stuff right.
just brew it! wrote:That said, it was not enough to spoil my enjoyment of the movie. Just one of those things that make you shrug and go "Oh well, artistic license."
Cuarón has stated that the film is not always scientifically accurate and that some liberties were needed to sustain the story. Nevertheless, the film has been praised for the realism of its premises and its overall adherence to physical principles, despite a few inaccuracies and exaggerations. According to NASA Astronaut Michael J. Massimino, who took part in two Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Missions (STS-109 and STS-125), "nothing was out of place, nothing was missing. There was a one of a kind wirecutter we used on one of my spacewalks and sure enough they had that wirecutter in the movie."On October 6, 2013, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson posted some inaccuracies in his official Twitter account.Examples of inaccuracies include:
- The Hubble Space Telescope (HST), which is being repaired at the beginning of the movie, has an orbit of about 559 kilometers (347 mi). The ISS, on the other hand, has a very slightly elliptical orbit at around 420 kilometers (260 mi), and a very different orbital plane. It would, therefore, be impossible for an astronaut to migrate from the Hubble orbit to the ISS with a unit similar to the Manned Maneuvering Unit which had an approximate 6 hour working time.
- Stone's tears are seen running down and floating off her face. Without sufficient force to dislodge the tears, the tears would remain on her face due to surface tension. However, the movie correctly portrays the spherical appearance of liquid drops in a micro-gravity environment.
- During reentry, Stone's helmet and other objects are still floating inside the capsule despite the fact that it is already decelerating through the atmosphere.
- Stone mentions that she has only six months training and was brought onto the flight for her specialized skillset. Such a person is referred to as a "payload specialist", not a "mission specialist", and would never have trained to do a spacewalk or land a spacecraft.
- Rather than leaving a gaping hole, space debris impacting an astronaut would combust the oxygen in their suit and incinerate them.
The film was praised by filmmakers James Cameron, who said, "I think it's the best space photography ever done, I think it's the best space film ever done, and it's the movie I've been hungry to see for an awful long time", and Quentin Tarantino, who named it one of the ten best movies of 2013 so far. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin is also a big fan of the film, calling the visual effects "remarkable". He goes on saying, "I was so extravagantly impressed by the portrayal of the reality of zero gravity. Going through the space station was done just the way that I've seen people do it in reality. The spinning is going to happen—maybe not quite that vigorous—but certainly we've been fortunate that people haven't been in those situations yet.
it's shocking on occasion how little critics will ask from a movie only to then do a 180 and demand perfection from another.Clone, no movie is perfect and you do bring up some valid questions. However, it would seem that almost nobody else cares about these as the movie currently holds a 97% rating at rotten tomatoes with critics and a 89% with the audience.
the first link kinda sums it all up and validates my criticisms on the technical side (actually I'm kind of surprised that I was a lot more right than wrong in almost every technical criticism once addressed honestly.)I found two articles that present a good read.
clone wrote:all of Bullocks mistakes were more like an astronaut training video on what will happen if you are silly. the Sandra Bullock character didn't need to be perfect but seriously the character was almost ditzy.
Airmantharp wrote:I spent the first half of the movie thinking, 'hun, you need to work on this astronaut thing,' as I'd expect to perform at least as well as she did, with no training at all. Well, I'd probably be more like 'woo space' and enjoying the moment, but when **** gets serious, professionals know how to lock it in, while she just fell to pieces over and over.
nerdrage wrote:I am normally ok with Sandra Bullock, however I agree with these two points that clone and Airmantharp made:clone wrote:all of Bullocks mistakes were more like an astronaut training video on what will happen if you are silly. the Sandra Bullock character didn't need to be perfect but seriously the character was almost ditzy.Airmantharp wrote:I spent the first half of the movie thinking, 'hun, you need to work on this astronaut thing,' as I'd expect to perform at least as well as she did, with no training at all. Well, I'd probably be more like 'woo space' and enjoying the moment, but when **** gets serious, professionals know how to lock it in, while she just fell to pieces over and over.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
My third issue was with SB's breathing... Annoying for two reasons: 1. It was annoying to listen to it for what seemed like forever, and 2. A trained astronaut would know that oxygen is a limited and precious resource so she would know that hyperventilating and talking excessively will only make the oxygen run out faster; yet she did both anyway and then proceeded to whine incessantly that her oxygen was running out.
Finally, I found it hard to believe that a character who was so ditzy could miraculously know how to read both Russian and Mandarin.
I've never walked out of a movie (not because of its content anyway), but at 30 minutes in, I was really tempted to. I think that since I saw the movie in 2D I was less impressed with the visuals and more focused on the story, characters, plot, and scientific accuracy (or lack thereof) and my suspension of disbelief was shot right away.
I walk into every movie with 1 request.FroBozz wrote:Clone, it's my opinion that you nickpick too much. Do you approach all movies the same way?
this is not an accusation but seriously you've just called not just the movie but the entire franchise absolute garbage and could care less whether or not it ever gets better because.... "hey, it's Star Trek" (and it's all garbage anyway)But hey, its STAR TREK
again not an accusation but I don't doubt that. FroBozz it's not that I "nitpick", I just ask that they try.... it's my money and my time invested in the experience....again not an accusation but you've readily admitted you don't make the same request nor place the same value on your money or your time.A movie has to be *really* bad for me to dislike it usually.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests