Technical inaccuracies in the movie Gravity - SPOILER ALERT

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Mushtang

Premium Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
3,452
Reaction score
1,135
Location
Buford, Ga
I saw this over the weekend and just couldn't enjoy it as much as I wanted to. So I thought I'd start a thread about what was wrong with the movie. I know the scenery is fantastic and they got a lot of stuff right, but the stuff they got wrong was too much for me to get past and enjoy.

Before anyone suggests that I just accept that it's a Hollywood movie and not a documentary I want to say that I understand this. But... once a movie starts breaking it's own rules it's hard to get past it. If I'm watching Superman I have no problem ignoring the physics and watching him fly around. But if a Superman movie came out where he suddenly could pick up an entire island enriched with kryptonite and fly it into space after a small sliver almost killed him, I'd also have a huge problem with that. If I watch Star Trek I have no problem with them beaming each other around, but if Kirk started flying like Superman to get out of a situation I'd have a huge problem with that too.

A space movie, like Gravity, based in our world and rules, can't ignore physics and orbital mechanics as much as this one does and still be entertaining to me. And I know I'm not alone with this. I've talked to several other people that agree.

Here's the biggest problems that I noticed and remembered, in no real order. I'm sure I've forgotten a lot already because as I was watching the movie it seemed like every 10 minutes I was thinking, "What??? It doesn't work that way", and now I can only think of a dozen.

Feel free to add any that I've missed.


1 - The Hubble Telescope orbits WAY higher than the International Space Station, and in a very different inclination. There's no way someone wearing a Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) could navigate from the Hubble to the ISS.

2 - The premise of the movie is silly. Satellites could destroy each other in theory, but won't form a cloud that heads out towards anything in a different orbit. The debris would initially stay in the original orbit of the satellite and take a long time to expand far enough to endanger objects in different orbits.

3 - The debris cloud wouldn't show up every 90 minutes, that's the time it takes to orbit earth in a low earth orbit. If something were moving in your orbit and was coming around every 90 minutes, it would have to be moving much much faster than you were, and would be in a much higher orbit anyway due to the higher velocity.

4 - Rendezvous in space is harder than shooting towards something else in orbit. Several times in the movie they pointed their propulsion device (rocket, fire extinguisher, etc) in the opposite direction from where they wanted to go and fired. Then they moved towards the object and eventually hit it slow enough that it didn't kill them. Orbital mechanics are way more complicated than that!!

5 - George Clooney didn't have to cut himself loose, and if he did he wouldn't fall away. Once he and Sandra caught the lines of the parachute and drifted to the end, they stopped. All they had to do was pull themselves slightly and they'd start moving, and could climb the ropes. When Clooney did detach himself he suddenly fell away. What was pulling him?

6 - On reentry her helmet wouldn't be floating weightless. She managed to climb inside a space station that was already experiencing drag in the atmosphere, so when she removed her helmet it should have hit the wall instead of floating by weightless.

7 - Sandra Bullock gets into her space suit, by herself, in less than 7 minutes. She announces that the debris field will be there in 7 minutes but she's first got to go outside and detach the parachute lines. Suddenly she's climbing out of the hatch in her suit before the debris shows up. Not a chance.

8 - Sandra Bullock wears a tshirt and boyshorts under her space suit instead of a full body cooling suit. Maybe the second time she'd be in a hurry and wouldn't bother... but the first time she takes it off was from when she was suited up to work on the Hubble, and was wearing her underwear.

9 - A tear runs down her cheek for a short distance. But she's weightless in orbit and that would be impossible.

10 - 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.

11 - Someone not trained on the landing procedures of a spaceship can pull a How To manual off the shelf that's written in a different language and use it to initiate the landing process? Not only that, but she somehow reprogrammed the Russian lander to think that it was about to land so it would fire it's retro rockets. Why not just have her program a teleportation device instead and beam herself down. Seems about as likely.

12 - The raging fire on board the ISS didn't increase the pressure inside the station so much that it blew it open, or showed even the slightest amount of damage from the outside as it kept burning, while she slowly made her escape.
 
Yeah, the movie was full of holes... but for a good Saturday afternoon adventure flick, it wasn't bad...

Agree with everything you said... the Clooney cut-loose was the most openly aggregious thing to me, that and him zipping around all over the screen in that backpack MMU without a care in the world, like a kid on a go-kart...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Boy, Mushtang, you're really a "glass half empty" kinda fella, aren't you! LOL!
 
Here's the biggest problems that I noticed and remembered, in no real order.

I noticed most of the same problems you did, but I was able to get past most of them and still enjoy the movie. Almost any kind of action or adventure type movie starts to fall apart pretty fast when you analyze it. In fact, even other genres of movie don't hold up well under scrutiny. Reality is often just boring, and that's why people watch movies. Relax... let your mind focus on what the movie is trying to say, and just enjoy it...

That said, I agree with your technical critique of most of the points you made, and I just have some thoughts to add on a few of them:

2 - The premise of the movie is silly. Satellites could destroy each other in theory, but won't form a cloud that heads out towards anything in a different orbit. The debris would initially stay in the original orbit of the satellite and take a long time to expand far enough to endanger objects in different orbits.

Actually, there is a scenario called the Kessler syndrome, or cascade effect, that was proposed by the NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler, and it closely resembles the problem described in the movie. It certainly would not develop as quickly as the movie represents, but it's not completely made up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome


5 - George Clooney didn't have to cut himself loose, and if he did he wouldn't fall away. Once he and Sandra caught the lines of the parachute and drifted to the end, they stopped. All they had to do was pull themselves slightly and they'd start moving, and could climb the ropes. When Clooney did detach himself he suddenly fell away. What was pulling him?

This is the thing that bothered me the most and sort of brought me out of my suspension of disbelief during the movie. THERE IS NOTHING PULLING ON HIM!!! They were stopped at the end of the line and had enough time to have a conversation about it, so they were definitely not moving relative to each other --- there was no momentum and no force, so there should be nothing pulling them apart. That bugged me.


8 - Sandra Bullock wears a tshirt and boyshorts under her space suit instead of a full body cooling suit. Maybe the second time she'd be in a hurry and wouldn't bother... but the first time she takes it off was from when she was suited up to work on the Hubble, and was wearing her underwear.

I agree this is scene is not correct and would have been improved if she were naked.
 
Actually, there is a scenario called the Kessler syndrome, or cascade effect, that was proposed by the NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler, and it closely resembles the problem described in the movie. It certainly would not develop as quickly as the movie represents, but it's not completely made up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test

The orbit where FY-1C used to be is pretty much useless now, plus a few in nearby altitudes and inclinations since the debris spread around a bit. Even better, since FY-1C was so high the debris is going to be up there for a while - decades, at least - so we can't just wait for it to go away (although that's really all we can do).

Some of the facts are stretched a bit, certainly, but 'debris from collisions forming a chain reaction which wrecks just about everything in orbit' is entirely plausible. And there's really nothing we can do about it, except stop contributing to the problem.
 
I noticed most of the same problems you did, but I was able to get past most of them and still enjoy the movie. Almost any kind of action or adventure type movie starts to fall apart pretty fast when you analyze it. In fact, even other genres of movie don't hold up well under scrutiny. Reality is often just boring, and that's why people watch movies. Relax... let your mind focus on what the movie is trying to say, and just enjoy it...
I went to a lot of trouble when I wrote my original post to try and avoid this kind of reply. I don't understand it because I clearly stated that I know it's not a documentary, but I can't just relax and enjoy it when the movie breaks it's own rules. If you were watching the latest Star Trek and Kirk pulled out a lightsaber and started fighting Kahn or suddenly had mind control powers, would you relax and enjoy the ride? Not a chance. Saying that any movie should be enjoyed even though it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, because that's what movies are made for, is a cheap reply. It makes me think you completely missed the point of my post.


Actually, there is a scenario called the Kessler syndrome, or cascade effect, that was proposed by the NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler, and it closely resembles the problem described in the movie. It certainly would not develop as quickly as the movie represents, but it's not completely made up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
I'm aware of the Kessler syndrome, I never said it was made up, I said the premise of the movie was silly. I even said "Satellites could destroy each other in theory". What happened in the movie is a super exaggerated Kessler syndrome that acts way too fast and the debris becomes a super cloud that flies way up into a different orbit and stays up there zooming around really fast. That's not what Kessler said could happen.


This is the thing that bothered me the most and sort of brought me out of my suspension of disbelief during the movie. THERE IS NOTHING PULLING ON HIM!!! They were stopped at the end of the line and had enough time to have a conversation about it, so they were definitely not moving relative to each other --- there was no momentum and no force, so there should be nothing pulling them apart. That bugged me.
Um... wait a minute. Couldn't you just relax and enjoy it? I thought since it was a movie it was made to entertain you and not to be scrutinized.


I agree this is scene is not correct and would have been improved if she were naked.
Agreed. And I would scrutinize that scene a lot more if she were. :clap::smile::wink:
 
Last edited:

In the link you posted, it states "The first experimental attempt to use the technique on a human spaceflight was performed on September 13, 1966, on the US Gemini 11 mission, by attaching the Gemini spacecraft to its Agena target vehicle by a 100 feet (30 m) tether. The attempt was a failure, as insufficient gradient was produced to keep the tether taut".

So I think George and Sandra would have been able to pull themselves back to the space station. And even when he unhooked, he wouldn't have dropped away like that.
 
I enjoyed the film very much. I saw it as part science, and part science fiction. As such, in my mind, it doesnt have to prescribe to any one
set of 'rules' per se. No problem, really. Although.. I did wonder how she managed not to have even a hint of stubble on her legs....
;)
 
No one has spoken to what my biggest problem was. Yeah, there is the "What universe does this kind of physics work out in" question. But there is one that bothers me more.

Clooney's character knew almost nothing about Bullock's character. Not really a technical error, but in my mind it was an egregious relational error.

If you know anything about astronaut training, the astronauts REALLY get to know each other. NASA missions take months, and sometimes years of planning and preparation by the crew. You do almost everything together. You can read about how close a crew can get in the "High Calling: The Courageous Life and Faith of Space Shuttle Columbia Commander Rick Husband", written by the widow of the commander of STS-107.

That said, I am glad I saw the movie. At least spaceflight wasn't totally "cheesed out" and it was depicted as the wonder and marvel that it really is.

Greg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the link you posted, it states "The first experimental attempt to use the technique on a human spaceflight was performed on September 13, 1966, on the US Gemini 11 mission, by attaching the Gemini spacecraft to its Agena target vehicle by a 100 feet (30 m) tether. The attempt was a failure, as insufficient gradient was produced to keep the tether taut".

So I think George and Sandra would have been able to pull themselves back to the space station. And even when he unhooked, he wouldn't have dropped away like that.

Yeah, it was a stretch. I just wanted to point out that there is a lot of weird and wonderful stuff going on in space that isn't readily apparent to those of us born on the surface of a planet. As Greg points out.

The slipping of the cable in that scene was also very odd. On the other hand, the visibility in a spacesuit is so poor that I don't think you could know if you were being retained by a hawser or by a thread.

A buddy of mine was livid about the technical mistakes. So I went in prepared to hate the movie. I was pleasantly surprised that I could "skate over" the mistakes and enjoy the movie for what it was: science fiction and not documentary.

I may not have been as relaxed as that sounds. I later overheard my wife describing the movie viewing experience: it would have been better not sitting next to the rocket scientist. 8)
 
Finally saw the film and must have been entertained because the time went by quickly. However, no edge of the seat effect for me and didn't care much about any of the characters because they didn't have time in the film to develop them. Basically a Las Vegas Cirque du Soleil in orbit. Errors and major implausibilities far too numerous to even begin listing, the close co-location in orbit of two space stations and Hubble being a big one. I'm not nearly as impressed with the film as I thought I'd be. Worth seeing, but basically a space based Las Vegas acrobatic act.
 
Last edited:
I went to a lot of trouble when I wrote my original post to try and avoid this kind of reply. I don't understand it because I clearly stated that I know it's not a documentary, but I can't just relax and enjoy it when the movie breaks it's own rules. If you were watching the latest Star Trek and Kirk pulled out a lightsaber and started fighting Kahn or suddenly had mind control powers, would you relax and enjoy the ride? Not a chance. Saying that any movie should be enjoyed even though it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, because that's what movies are made for, is a cheap reply. It makes me think you completely missed the point of my post.

I'm kind of surprised at what seems to me to be a hostile tone here. I think I did understand your point --- I just don't really agree with it. I was just pointing out that in order to enjoy this fictional movie, a person has to accept some of the fictional elements. I recognized many of the same problems you noticed but was able to get past them and enjoy the movie. You weren't able to do it --- too bad for you.

I do not agree that the movie suffers from very many of the type of internal inconsistency problems you are talking about. Internal inconsistency can really ruin a movie or book. Your earlier example in which it would be unacceptable for a Superman movie to show Superman able to lift an island enriched with krytonite is an example of internal inconsistency. The audience accepts the completely ridiculous premise that there can even be a Superman, but expects Superman movies to be internally consistent with the other premise that Superman is vulnerable to kryptonite. If those internal rules are broken, then that internal inconsistency is an even bigger problem for the movie than the fact that the whole thing is based on a completely ridiculous fictional existence of a Superman in the first place. The existence of a Superman is an inconsistency with REALITY that is external to the movie, and the audience will accept that the movie is going to deviate from reality in that respect, as long as it doesn't deviate from its own internal premises.

I think most of the problems you noted are deviations from REALITY and are NOT internal inconsistency problems for the movie. According to the movie's internal premises, the ISS is near the Hubble and Chinese space station --- the movie states the distances and/or positions, and it never internally deviates from those premises. In the movie, the MMU can maneuver that distance --- the Clooney character explicitly states the fuel limitations and distances that can be flown --- he establishes that premise for the movie, and the movie does not deviate from it. Same for the nature of the cascade effect and the debris coming around every 90 minutes --- it's established as an internal premise. Most of your complaints are actually about how these premises depart from reality, not an internal inconsistency in the movie. They are more like not being able to watch a Superman movie because the existence of Superman is impossible and not realistic.

You mocked me a bit for having my own problem with the scene in which Clooney has to let go of the tether to avoid pulling Bullock loose from the parachute line. The reason that scene is a problem for me is that it IS an internal inconsistency problem. The movie clearly establishes that it takes place in a microgravity environment and goes to extraordinary lengths to accurately portray that environment. In earlier scenes, the movie shows the two astronauts tethered together and moving in a way that is pretty consistent with microgravity. So the internal premise for the movie is that microgravity works in this movie in a way that is consistent with reality. But in this one scene, there is a force that is inconsistent with that microgravity environment, and it is not explained. Not only is it internally inconsistent with how the movie represented microgravity in earlier scenes but it is a major plot point with serious consequences for the characters. That bothered me.
 
Last edited:
I'm kind of surprised at what seems to me to be a hostile tone here. I think I did understand your point --- I just don't really agree with it. I was just pointing out that in order to enjoy this fictional movie, a person has to accept some of the fictional elements. I recognized many of the same problems you noticed but was able to get past them and enjoy the movie. You weren't able to do it --- too bad for you.

I do not agree that the movie suffers from very many of the type of internal inconsistency problems you are talking about. Internal inconsistency can really ruin a movie or book. Your earlier example in which it would be unacceptable for a Superman movie to show Superman able to lift an island enriched with krytonite is an example of internal inconsistency. The audience accepts the completely ridiculous premise that there can even be a Superman, but expects Superman movies to be internally consistent with the other premise that Superman is vulnerable to kryptonite. If those internal rules are broken, then that internal inconsistency is an even bigger problem for the movie than the fact that the whole thing is based on a completely ridiculous fictional existence of a Superman in the first place. The existence of a Superman is an inconsistency with REALITY that is external to the movie, and the audience will accept that the movie is going to deviate from reality in that respect, as long as it doesn't deviate from its own internal premises.

I think most of the problems you noted are deviations from REALITY and are NOT internal inconsistency problems for the movie. According to the movie's internal premises, the ISS is near the Hubble and Chinese space station --- the movie states the distances and/or positions, and it never internally deviates from those premises. In the movie, the MMU can maneuver that distance --- the Clooney character explicitly states the fuel limitations and distances that can be flown --- he establishes that premise for the movie, and the movie does not deviate from it. Same for the nature of the cascade effect and the debris coming around every 90 minutes --- it's established as an internal premise. Most of your complaints are actually about how these premises depart from reality, not an internal inconsistency in the movie. They are more like not being able to watch a Superman movie because the existence of Superman is impossible and not realistic.

You mocked me a bit for having my own problem with the scene in which Clooney has to let go of the tether to avoid pulling Bullock loose from the parachute line. The reason that scene is a problem for me is that it IS an internal inconsistency problem. The movie clearly establishes that it takes place in a microgravity environment and goes to extraordinary lengths to accurately portray that environment. In earlier scenes, the movie shows the two astronauts tethered together and moving in a way that is pretty consistent with microgravity. So the internal premise for the movie is that microgravity works in this movie in a way that is consistent with reality. But in this one scene, there is a force that is inconsistent with that microgravity environment, and it is not explained. Not only is it internally inconsistent with how the movie represented microgravity in earlier scenes but it is a major plot point with serious consequences for the characters. That bothered me.

From what I could tell the movie wasn't set in a make believe world where all the space stations line up with all the satellites making it possible for the movie premise to exist. It was set in the future of this world, but one is which the Space Shuttle still flies, the MMU is more advanced, and the Chinese space station is further along, but nothing else I saw suggested that they were asking us to accept that it's a completely different Earth (such as the Superman movies are) where the laws of physics no longer apply in the same way.

No matter how much more efficient you make an MMU, to ask me to accept that it can fly from the Hubble to the ISS is ridiculous. Even the Space Shuttle couldn't do that. But for the sake of debate I'll concede that IF the ISS were close by and in the exact same orbit, it might be possible to use a very very advanced MMU to get to it. But not by pointing towards it and moving straight to it.

The other issues I had with the movie are very much internal inconsistencies. The movie is set in Earth orbit, and I should be able to expect the things that apply in Earth orbit in reality should apply in the movie no matter where they're located. Shortly after she climbs aboard the space station that is already burning up in the atmosphere her helmet can float weightless? An untrained person can pull a book from the shelf in a foreign space ship and figure out how to initiate landing? Or reprogram the Soyuz to think it's landing so that it pushes her towards another space station? It's not an internal inconsistency to point the capsule at the space station, fire, and you'll head towards it instead of the complicated rendezvous procedure it would actually take? Tears can roll down cheeks in weightless orbit? A fire blazes in the space station and it doesn't fill completely with smoke in seconds (something I didn't mention earlier) and never builds up enough pressure to damage the hull? These are all examples of things that shouldn't happen in the world the movie is set in.

And no, I'm not trying to be hostile, I was just frustrated because I specifically stated that I knew this wasn't a documentary in order to avoid people coming back with, "It's just a movie, enjoy it". And that's pretty much what you came to me with. No hostility meant then, or now. I'm just chatting about what the movie is or isn't. I'm not here to ruffle feathers or lose friends over a badly made movie.
 
That's a good point about this being a "future world" where things have evolved from where they are now. Maybe Hubble gets moved into the ISS orbit to make servicing easier? Maybe Explorer is an "evolved Shuttle"? Maybe the Chinese put their next space station(s) into orbit near the ISS so there can be visits but they have their own territory?

She had been trained on the Soyuz. So she could read the Russian manuals and remember how to run things. I'm not sure how accurate the premise of the Chinese craft being a complete knock-off of the Soyuz. That was the rational for being able to approximate where the Chinese buttons were to do specific things.

Anyway, lots of "willing suspension of disbelief." I still liked the movie! 8)
 
I guess if your point is that the movie is not realistic, then you are absolutely correct. And you'd like to list the ways it is not realistic, then have fun.

It seems to support the JJ Abrams philosophy that if you make a movie or a show that has small technical flaws, people will pick it to death, but if you make something that is completely absurd, people will accept it.

My feeling is that a completely realistic movie about space travel as it really is today probably would not be a very good movie. The experience of going to space is one of the most incredible things you can do, I'm sure. And I would jump at the chance. But a movie that accurately represented the routines, checklists and drudgery of being an astronaut might not be very good. Not to mention the funky hygiene, bad food, and constant noise and racket. The slow, deliberate pace of everything. The rules...
 
What? A movie that's not technically accurate? Call the president of Hollywood! This kind of thing can not stand! Gentlemen, we have to protect our phoney balogna jobs! Harrumph!
 
In the spirit of nitpicking:

  • Her hair did not float the way we see astronauts' hair floating in microgravity.
  • I doubt you could successfully undock a space capsule from a space station and orient the capsule for a proper reentry if the linked ships are already beginning an uncontrolled reentry into the atmosphere.
 
In the spirit of nitpicking:

  • Her hair did not float the way we see astronauts' hair floating in microgravity.
  • I doubt you could successfully undock a space capsule from a space station and orient the capsule for a proper reentry if the linked ships are already beginning an uncontrolled reentry into the atmosphere.

Well, maybe she just needed to wash her hair? :shock:

The whacky undocking hypothesis brought to mind the TMA-11 "issues." But the priceless part of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TMA-11 entry is this:

Anatoly Perminov, the head of the Russian Federal Space Agency, speculated that the ballistic reentry was connected to a Russian nautical superstition that having more women than men on a craft was unlucky. "This isn't discrimination," he stated when challenged on the point. "I'm just saying that when a majority [of the crew] is female, sometimes certain kinds of unsanctioned behaviour or something else occurs." Perminov said he would try to ensure that the number of women would not exceed the number of men in the future.
 
In the spirit of nitpicking:

  • Her hair did not float the way we see astronauts' hair floating in microgravity.
  • I doubt you could successfully undock a space capsule from a space station and orient the capsule for a proper reentry if the linked ships are already beginning an uncontrolled reentry into the atmosphere.
The first probably would have looked horrible attempting to simulate it with CGI and the second depends upon the inherent stability of the Chinese Soyuz capsule clone at non-optimal (to say the least) reentry attitudes. But we don't need to get down to that level of detail because the list would be huge. The most glaring errors and improbabilities in my opinion were the manually executed MMU and fire extinguisher(!) navigation, the two space stations and the Hubble in the same orbit in close proximity, and the flashover on the ISS since its atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen. I'm sure I'm forgetting many things, but this was a Las Vegas acrobatic show in orbit, entertaining but not remotely accurate except perhaps for some of the physics, the fact that there could at some point be an orbital cascade event although definitely not exactly as shown, and the spacecraft interiors and exteriors.
 
Last edited:
The biggest error in the film IMHO is that it overlooks the fact that space is REALLY friggin' BIG...

EVERYTHING took place with the Hubble, ISS, shuttle, debris, and Shenzhou in impossibly close proximity...

Later! OL JR :)
 
The biggest error is they forgot to hire a decent writer. It had actors I like, a "location" I like, the set was good, the effects were fine, but overall the movie was ho hum. Most of the technical stuff I can forgive for the sake of mass market entertainment, but the storyline and dialogue was just dull.
 
they forgot to hire a decent writer

WHY is this the case for almost all movies these days...
They spend tons on actors, set, location, special effects.
Can't they spend a few up-front bucks to make the whole process more worthwhile???
I don't get it -- so many movies I walk out of and say "great visuals but no story."

I've got a "script writer" here at home -- cum laude English major that would love to "help."
She talked to a local movie house and they said "we just buy our scripts" like it was just another tool needed to make the movie.
They have ZERO script writers.....and boy does it show.
SAD considering the money needed to make movies.
Seems like such a small up-front investment to make your product SO much better.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could goto a space [or other technical-based] movie and leave your brain engaged!
 
The biggest error is they forgot to hire a decent writer. It had actors I like, a "location" I like, the set was good, the effects were fine, but overall the movie was ho hum. Most of the technical stuff I can forgive for the sake of mass market entertainment, but the storyline and dialogue was just dull.
Agree 100%. I was expecting far more because of its box office take, the previews, and the unusually positive professional reviews, but no joy. Basically an acrobatic circus act in space with undeveloped characters to which I was not emotionally attached. Character development is essential because one knows it's a movie and that real people aren't at risk. Good character development can help to overcome that lack of involvement.
 
Last edited:
they forgot to hire a decent writer

WHY is this the case for almost all movies these days...
They spend tons on actors, set, location, special effects.
Can't they spend a few up-front bucks to make the whole process more worthwhile???
I don't get it -- so many movies I walk out of and say "great visuals but no story."

I've got a "script writer" here at home -- cum laude English major that would love to "help."
She talked to a local movie house and they said "we just buy our scripts" like it was just another tool needed to make the movie.
They have ZERO script writers.....and boy does it show.
SAD considering the money needed to make movies.
Seems like such a small up-front investment to make your product SO much better.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could goto a space [or other technical-based] movie and leave your brain engaged!
Exactly. CGI is expensive, but it's apparently much easier to do than finding people with enough talent to recognize a good story and script and make a good film from that. Some famous director (can't remember which) said that CGI is destroying the quality of films. I agree.
 
I later overheard my wife describing the movie viewing experience: it would have been better not sitting next to the rocket scientist.

I kept my mouth shut through the movie. And afterward. She wouldn't have understood half of these technical hiccups anyway.
 
Back
Top