MaxQ
Tripoli 2747
Think you nailed most of them....particularly #1 and #3, but despite the technical errors which started right out of the gate I still got into it.
The great scenery and the compelling feeling of being in the movie by virtue of the 3 D made it very tolerable, even enjoyable.
So, I'm going to say what I said in a previous post on this subject...if you don't ante up for the 3 D you're wasting your time on this one.
I don't look to Hollywood to get anything right, they have always always either distorted or taken liberty with historical facts or technical accuracy for the sake of entertainment, even Ron Howard did it on Apollo 13.
This movie didn't irritate me near as much as "Another Earth", where the lovely young heroine of the story describes an incident involving the first man in space having to get used to an annoying clicking sound in the space capsule and finally psychologically tuning it out for the duration of the mission which she said was a week.
The premise of this movie...that there could even be another earth in orbit around the sun, was absurd from the git go...but I was willing to go with it for the sake of the story...but getting a basic fact like this wrong - I was so irritated at what was a simple correctable error that I lost respect for the rest of the movie before it was over - so I understand where you are coming from.
It is one thing to get technical facts wrong but to misrepresent basic historical fact - ridiculous.
But then you have movies like the "300", where they portrayed the persian king xerxes like a bling laden Rupaul.
Given the way things are these days, the way entertainment is over amped up...basic facts just don't cut it anymore.
But then it has given rise to a whole new TV genre...the "Real Story" version of (insert your movie title here) to set things right.
"Ignoring for a moment that they're all in different inclinations...the Hubble, the ISS, and the Chinese space station are all within sight of each other. That's as believable as a movie about a sinking cruise ship way out in the Pacific ocean, and 2 other major cruise ships just happen to be a couple of miles away."
Yep...that was the biggest piece of nonsense of the whole movie.
But as for ships on the ocean... I think people are still trying to figure out why a steamer within visual range of the Titanic did nothing while the Titanic went down, unbelievable then, still puzzling now.
As for the observation of orbital mechanics, one of the foremost experts on orbital mechanics saw the movie and enjoyed it.
Buzz Aldrin.
At least people are talking about space again.
I'm so disgusted with 90 % of what is in the theater these days, and the 15 minutes of trailers I had to endure to see this movie reminded me of the reason I rarely go anymore.
I've seen Gravity twice...first in 3D and second in 3D IMAX.
Yes, it is that good.
The great scenery and the compelling feeling of being in the movie by virtue of the 3 D made it very tolerable, even enjoyable.
So, I'm going to say what I said in a previous post on this subject...if you don't ante up for the 3 D you're wasting your time on this one.
I don't look to Hollywood to get anything right, they have always always either distorted or taken liberty with historical facts or technical accuracy for the sake of entertainment, even Ron Howard did it on Apollo 13.
This movie didn't irritate me near as much as "Another Earth", where the lovely young heroine of the story describes an incident involving the first man in space having to get used to an annoying clicking sound in the space capsule and finally psychologically tuning it out for the duration of the mission which she said was a week.
The premise of this movie...that there could even be another earth in orbit around the sun, was absurd from the git go...but I was willing to go with it for the sake of the story...but getting a basic fact like this wrong - I was so irritated at what was a simple correctable error that I lost respect for the rest of the movie before it was over - so I understand where you are coming from.
It is one thing to get technical facts wrong but to misrepresent basic historical fact - ridiculous.
But then you have movies like the "300", where they portrayed the persian king xerxes like a bling laden Rupaul.
Given the way things are these days, the way entertainment is over amped up...basic facts just don't cut it anymore.
But then it has given rise to a whole new TV genre...the "Real Story" version of (insert your movie title here) to set things right.
"Ignoring for a moment that they're all in different inclinations...the Hubble, the ISS, and the Chinese space station are all within sight of each other. That's as believable as a movie about a sinking cruise ship way out in the Pacific ocean, and 2 other major cruise ships just happen to be a couple of miles away."
Yep...that was the biggest piece of nonsense of the whole movie.
But as for ships on the ocean... I think people are still trying to figure out why a steamer within visual range of the Titanic did nothing while the Titanic went down, unbelievable then, still puzzling now.
As for the observation of orbital mechanics, one of the foremost experts on orbital mechanics saw the movie and enjoyed it.
Buzz Aldrin.
At least people are talking about space again.
I'm so disgusted with 90 % of what is in the theater these days, and the 15 minutes of trailers I had to endure to see this movie reminded me of the reason I rarely go anymore.
I've seen Gravity twice...first in 3D and second in 3D IMAX.
Yes, it is that good.
Last edited:
