Fans of the movie Passengers...

Advertise with us
madcow rocketry
SilicdyneTRF
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Isn't it piss-raining in NJ? Or brutally sunny & hot?! Either way, a good excuse to stay inside and do nothing for 1hr:52 minutes.. :D
 
It is sometimes very distracting in sci fi movies that try to be "physics accurate" when they veer off course and present you with something so physically impossible that the scientist in you can't help but scream at the screen "That's impossible!".

Sci Fi fantasy (like Star Wars) is often less distracting because the writers aren't' trying to be bound by reality - magic and imagination are welcome!

But movies like Gravity and Interstellar become darn near unwatchable. These are movies that market themselves as physically accurate and "could happen" scenarios, but there are way too many glaring problems to take them seriously. My household commander refuses to go to these types of movies with me anymore because I always walk out afterwards grumbling about orbital planes or some such discussion that makes her crazy :) .

I have watched Passengers and I did like the movie. It didn't hit you over the head with physics irregularities. The gaffs are pretty light and well within artistic license, so it is easier to concentrate on the story.

Probably one of the best shows that has tried to maintain a pretty strict adherence to real world physics is The Expanse. Great story line, great cast and near enough future to maintain suspension of disbelief.
 
mtnmanak

Have you ever read any of David Weber's "Honor Harrington" novels.
His depiction of deep space combat adheres to some pretty stringent self-imposed rules.
Ships must accelerate over time and distance and then flip to de-accelerate, there is no "Flying in a vacuum".
 
boomtube-mk2 said:
mtnmanak

Have you ever read any of David Weber's "Honor Harrington" novels.
His depiction of deep space combat adheres to some pretty stringent self-imposed rules.
Ships must accelerate over time and distance and then flip to de-accelerate, there is no "Flying in a vacuum".
Click to expand...

I have not, but will definitely add them to my book queue - thanks for the recommendation!
 
I re-watched the movie last night (somewhat driven by this thread) and I realized it could have been made significantly shorter.
Jim walks into the bar the first time and sees the bartender, which is a robot (pardon - android).
When the bartender insists that Jim could NOT be there (since hibernation pods NEVER fail), laser beams could have come out of the its eyes and disintegrated Jim so reality fit its logic. Movie ends. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤪🤪🤪
 
Peartree said:
Ditto. I LOVE her "cat."
Click to expand...

Many people believe that Nimitz is one of the big reasons why the Harrington movie/s have never gotten off the drawing board.
There have been several attempts at animating him and they all look hokey.
The other main reason is; who are they going to get to play the part of Honor?
 
boomtube-mk2 said:
mtnmanak

Have you ever read any of David Weber's "Honor Harrington" novels.
His depiction of deep space combat adheres to some pretty stringent self-imposed rules.
Ships must accelerate over time and distance and then flip to de-accelerate, there is no "Flying in a vacuum".
Click to expand...
That’s the best part of The Expanse, particularly the rail gun space battles.

Here’s an interesting read.

https://www.eonline.com/news/816631/the-30-burning-questions-you-ll-have-after-watching-passengers
 

Similar threads

georgegassaway
New KSP mission, to "Mars" (Duna) and back.
Replies
1
Views
5K
georgegassaway
georgegassaway
D
Spring Fever at Deepsky!
Replies
0
Views
1K
deepsky
D

Latest posts

Back
Top