Impressed by Gravity

[billvon 2,991]

A movie filmed almost entirely in low earth orbit, with 90% of the physics being correct - AND a good story to boot. Writing a good story, and then fitting it into the constraints of the real world - especially a world that movie makers have no instincts about - is a significant challenge, one that Alfonso Cuaron did an outstanding job at.

[JohnMitchell 16]

So, a positive review.

I still haven't seen it. Did the plot device of seeing the Hubble telescope even though their altitudes are a hundred miles apart bother you?

[billvon 2,991]

>Did the plot device of seeing the Hubble telescope even though their altitudes are a
>hundred miles apart bother you?

Well, they're servicing the Hubble; the odd plot device is being able to see the ISS from there. But no, not too much - that was needed for the plot to work.

In general I don't mind distortions of the science needed to make the plot work, because without them you don't have a movie. Getting almost everything _else_ right is commendable.

[quade 4]

Looking at an Oscar nomination for Bullock. Right now her only competition is Blanchett in "Blue Jasmine." Pretty tough choice there.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

I saw it last night. Yes, where everything is portrayed to be relative to each other is completely bananas* and yes, what the characters would have supposedly been trained to do and some of the protocols they were following were very unrealistic, but none of that was the point, it was still a good story, it was visually very impressive, and I think Bullock in particular did a great job.


*side note: demerit to Neil D. Tyson for complaining about altitude differences. The movie would have had them going from ~30 deg inclination, to ~50 deg, to ~40 deg and those plane changes would be waaaaay more of an issue in terms of fuel and planning. Who cares about a hundred miles of altitude?

[billvon 2,991]

>side note: demerit to Neil D. Tyson for complaining about altitude differences.

and another demerit for him complaining that the debris should orbit west to east. Most satellites do - but retrograde satellites (those orbiting east to west) pose a much higher threat if they are destroyed due to their much higher relative velocity. Thus, if the Russians were to destroy one of their own retrograde satellites, the odds are high of seeing a scenario as described in the movie.

[champu 1]

billvon

>side note: demerit to Neil D. Tyson for complaining about altitude differences.

and another demerit for him complaining that the debris should orbit west to east. Most satellites do - but retrograde satellites (those orbiting east to west) pose a much higher threat if they are destroyed due to their much higher relative velocity. Thus, if the Russians were to destroy one of their own retrograde satellites, the odds are high of seeing a scenario as described in the movie.

I would expect the debris to be moving N->S or S->N (or close to that) as sun-synchronous craft at that altitude are only slightly retrograde, and that's a popular orbit that would pose a lot of risk to moderately inclined prograde craft like the space station and Hubble. Fengyun-1C is a good example.

There aren't many reasons to launch something into a highly retrograde orbit at such a low altitude and so, as you'd expect, there are very few craft in such an orbit. So I'll say half a demerit for that one .

[Elisha 1]

I hope this isn't too off topic, but I was at a party Saturday evening and someone there told us all to get ready to spot the ISS (International Space Station) about 7:05. She had some app on her phone that showed when it would come into view. To me, it seemed way too fast to be something orbiting, (more like the speed of a plane), but Wikipedia says it orbits 15 times per day making it plausible to me.

Was this likely the ISS we saw?

[quade 4]

Elisha

To me, it seemed way too fast to be something orbiting...

So, lemme ask you, if something is traveling roughly 17,100 mph 300 miles away from you, what in your everyday life experience leads you to believe you can judge if it's traveling too fast or too slow? My guess is nothing. Certainly not by looking at it. My guess is you have absolutely zero frame of reference.

BTW, the answer is yes it's entirely possible this was the ISS. It could have also been any one of a number of other satellites, but let's give your friend with the iPhone app the benefit of the doubt. The ISS orbit is public knowledge and extremely predictable and NASA itself published an app to locate it in the sky when it flies by. There's little to be skeptical about here.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[FreeFallFiend 0]

I have seen it a few times while camping in Utah. (Easier to spot as there isnt any light pollution.)

Yes, it moves very fast across the sky.

Fiend

I am about to take my last voyage, a great leap in the dark. - Thomas Hobbes.

[billvon 2,991]

>Was this likely the ISS we saw?

Probably; it's pretty bright and it looks very fast. One way to tell if it's the ISS is that it will suddenly turn red and fade out as it travels east away from the sunset.

(You'll also see other low and medium orbit satellites like the Iridium satellites; they are often confused with the ISS, although the ISS is almost always brighter.)

[quade 4]

billvon

>Was this likely the ISS we saw?

Probably; it's pretty bright and it looks very fast. One way to tell if it's the ISS is that it will suddenly turn red and fade out as it travels east away from the sunset.

(You'll also see other low and medium orbit satellites like the Iridium satellites; they are often confused with the ISS, although the ISS is almost always brighter.)

That said, a flare from an iridium satellite is one of the brightest things you'll ever see in the night sky. This includes aircraft landing lights.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[labrys 0]

Quote

In general I don't mind distortions of the science needed to make the plot work, because without them you don't have a movie. Getting almost everything _else_ right is commendable.

I liked it a lot too. The visuals were lovely and story was entertaining and I liked that it wasn't 2.5 hours long. I'm more than happy to tolerate a little fact skewing to make a fictional movie work.

Owned by Remi #?

[JohnMitchell 16]

I think we'll go see it tonight. I like that it's only around 90 minutes. A few movies need to be well over 2 hours, but most stories can be told well in under 120 minutes.

[JohnMitchell 16]

Saw it, enjoyed it, sweet lookin' Sandra and a gripping little plot. I kept telling myself to ignore the small inconsistencies and just roll with the plot. $12 and 90 minutes well spent.

[quade 4]

While on my evening walk I had an epiphany about the movie "Gravity." If my theory is correct (which it probably isn't) it would explain virtually every science nerd's objections and Bullock's underwear. Like I said, it's probably not what the writer had in mind, but the film certainly could be interpreted this way AND it would be entirely obvious with the inclusion of a single additional shot at the beginning of the film. I think it's possible the information in that shot is implied anyway. Hmmm.

Bill, you can discuss it with Amy. I already chatted with her about it.

Not going to put any spoilers up at this time though.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnMitchell 16]

I was just happy to see she wasn't wearing a space walk diaper.

[quade 4]

JohnMitchell

I was just happy to see she wasn't wearing a space walk diaper.

A few people have brought that up. Again, my theory of the film would explain that as well.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[riddler 0]

I've liked every Alfonso Cuaron movie that I've seen. I think he's a good director (not brilliant, but good). When his name appears on the credits, I feel compelled to go see the movie in theater, and not wait until the disc release. Peter Jackson and James Cameron are also in that list.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[riddler 0]

Quote

Again, my theory of the film would explain that as well.

Your theory is that the film producers wanted to make money, and they needed a "money shot" of Bullock in tights to make money!

Am I right?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[diablopilot 2]

Agreed, a great movie, good attempt at keeping it "realistic. The only negative I have is that I saw it on IMAX 3D and I'm pretty sure anything else is going to be a disappointment at this point.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[quade 4]

diablopilot

Agreed, a great movie, good attempt at keeping it "realistic. The only negative I have is that I saw it on IMAX 3D and I'm pretty sure anything else is going to be a disappointment at this point.

IMAX 3D is very good. The quality of any 3D projection is very theater dependent. It even matters quite a bit where you sit in the theater. The best seat in an average theater might be objectively better than the less than optimal seats in an IMAX house, so if I was gambling and knew the theater was going to be crowded and I probably wasn't going to get an optimal seat, I'd probably skip the IMAX.

So, where is that optimal seat? Hard to be exact, but generally about 5 times the distance from the screen as the screen height and directly in the middle left to right. If you want to ramp up the 3D effect, sit closer, if 3D tends to make you woozy, you might want to consider sitting farther back. The "trouble" with a lot of IMAX houses is they tend to be incredibly close to the screen with very steep angles. You might not be able to sit far enough back to have the effect intended by the director, but the 3D will appear more intense and a lot of people do like that. That said, I also tend to like to sit a bit closer than the SMPTE standard of 5 times the screen height.

Some theater chains have theaters that aren't IMAX but are significantly better than average and I have a tendency to seek those out for event films. You'd have to do a bit of research to find them since they aren't marketed quite as well as the IMAX brand but Regal RPX and Cinemark XD are also very good. Usually there is only one or two screens like that in a complex so you'd want to make sure your tickets are for that specific screen.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,991]

>Your theory is that the film producers wanted to make money, and they needed a
>"money shot" of Bullock in tights to make money!

No, more like "it was all a dream" but I'll let Paul explain that.