"You wouldn't send a medical doctor to repair a satelite more than you would send a mechanical engineer to do open heart surgery." I NEVER ASKED FOR THIS
+Efe Ozata Nothing, except that it is a natural human condition to instinctively block criticism unless you make it into constructive criticism. That way the person who is being criticized doesn't feel like they are completely wrong, but rather just not completely perfect. It's like the old adage of the glass half full/half empty: Constructive criticism is like evaluating someone as one would look at a glass half full. It is saying that some of what you're doing is great, but other parts need work. Simply criticizing someone without the constructive element is like looking at them like a glass half empty, and will get you nowhere, because unlike the glass, humans have a choice to cooperate and generally will not do so when they feel that someone has challenged them or exposed their flaws without trying to work with them and help one another.
What's wrong with criticism? Well if you're a normal, well balanced, mentally stable and open minded human being; nothing. If you are an SJW however, then it's aggression, misogyny, bullying and homophobia.
Cinema is a form of art, and just like any art those who enjoy a piece tend to be defensive when that piece of art is attacked. It's kind of a flaw in our egos, in that we can't always accept that something we enjoy/love/appreciate is only 90% correct and 10% wrong. I like that Tyson can say "Hey, these are some things that are wrong with Gravity" while also saying "Hey, I really enjoyed it". Criticism and Praise do not have to be mutually exclusive.
fuck i would shoot myself if i was on the set.. that fucking movie sucked just sandra bullocks (nut sack) crying like a little bitch the whole movie.. totally out of control stupid
There's one thing I'll have to disagree with: while NdgT is, of course, absolutely right that it is very unlikely to land near a shore, it doesn't mean it's *impossible*. She just got lucky.
Agree with you, but I don't think NdGT said it was impossible, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely. Sandra Bullock is literally the LUCKIEST person to ever live!!
The place she landed... you would have better lucky hitting the lottery. Honestly it was the last part that really made me wonder if everything was a dream or alternate reality all over again. The odds of her just strolling to a beach like that on top of everything she already went through was just too much.
Even more extraordinary, she plays an woman astronaut that has no experience in outer space but survives one catastrophe after another alone in space. Now that is what I call affirmative action!
+Jeffrey314159 That's right! Who would ever think of putting a woman into space? Or even having a Black man as an Astrophysicist! It could never happen.........
+broomers3 its more like a woman who can't fly a shuttle and isn't an engineer oh yeah and can't listen to orders and is somehow the one to survive yet she is the reason george clooney dies
I don't think Bullock landed in "some lake." I think it might have been either the Ganges or the Nile (the Nile is focused in one space shot, and the Ganges is referenced by Clooney). Both rivers are mythical spawn points for life, and, considering the re-birth theme of the movie, it would thematically make sense for her to crawl from either of them.
Spoiler alert! (skip this if you haven't seen the movie and don't want... well, spoilers!) Something that really bugged me was when George Clooney had to cut himself from Sandra Bullock, he did this because something was pulling him and in turn her away from the satellite. But there was nothing there to pull him, there was only tension in the rope, nothing else, so he should not have been pulled off in the opposite direction, so he shouldn't have had to cut loose and kill himself. This just annoyed me a little because it's a major part of the plot and is so unjustified, they could have had some sort of shrapnel cut him off.
"he did this because something was pulling him" There was nothing pulling him. Objects that move in space - like astronauts - will continue to move until an opposing force will stop them. The rope around Sandra's leg wasn't able to stop their movement so they continued to move away from the ISS. After Clooney cut himself loose there was much less mass to absorb by the ropes, only Sandra was left, so the decelarating effect of the rope around her leg was able to stop her while George drifted away.
Libertinus79 This is not true. He already stoped because of the repelling force of the rope. There are only three outcomes to this scenario in zero g. ONE: The rope is not strong enough and breaks. Than both George Clooney and Sandra Bullock would have gone into space. TWO: The repelling force of the rope is strong enough to stop them. Now both George and Sandra would stop Moving even if you cut the rope because both forces were equal. THREE: The repelling force of the rope is so strong, that it would pull George Clooney and Sandra Bullock back to the spacestation.
Libertinus79 No, if you watch the clip, the rope had already decelerated them, but something kept accelerating clooney away, but there was nothing there to accelerate him away, that was my point.
Gravity is a great Space Drama that becomes quite intense and emotionally draining. However, its focus is more on the energy and emotional journey this woman goes through. Interstellar is a space Drama that has the gift of a long runtime. It has time to get the science right and get the drama and emotional connection right. Sure, it took its liberties, as any science fiction is bound to do, but it also nailed both parts equally well. Both films are great in their own distinct ways, and both benefit from an insanely talented director, but they both serve very different purposes.
Two things really bothered me most in Gravity (there were more, but those are the ones that I really remembered). One: where in the security line scene when Sandra has a foot caught up in the wreckage and she has George straped to her. I realize the inertia would fling Clooney into space and take Sandra with him so he decides to unhook and save his colleague from being ripped from those cables and drift of into space with him. But by the time he disconnects he's already slowed down by the safety line. What I mean is, if he didn't detach himself before the line was stretched to it's max it would have no point doing it after, when the gross of the momentum was already aplied to the tug and therefore transmited to the other body. If the whole idea of his sacrifice was to prevent Sandras foot to come loose from the additional momentum generated by his mass, than he should have detached much earlier before he could transmit the energy to her. Maybe I just missed something though. Two:The moment when Sandra opens up a pressurised hatch. Such a violent reaction of a slab of metal would have probably killed her and most certain catapult her into space. That's only my estimation but I think that such a heavy suit and her mass would produce a great amount of momentum and g-force, surely capable of overwhealming a human handgip. I know it's Hollywood, but still...
"If the whole idea of his sacrifice was to prevent Sandras foot to come loose from the additional momentum generated by his mass, than he should have detached much earlier before he could transmit the energy to her." The characters in the movie are still humans with emotions although Kowalski is portrayed as a super cool astronaut most of the time. I mean basically Kowalski could have refused to grab Sandra's tether in the first place to give her a greater chance of survival but his live depended on it and he waited how the whole situation plays out.
Ok, I understand but by this time his sacrifice had no point because he would already give the peak force to her and would not pull the tether any stronger than he already did. So at this poin he migt aswell stay hooked because letting go would not help any more. The only way to help would be decupling before the tug to the line. I admit that if the cables around her leg did not stretch to their limit than there was the danger that he would pull her off of those, but they were stretched and she was pulling at the tether so the force was already transmitted. Moreover, he would even bounce back tword her after the line tug.
mj .twardy I think the makers of the movie made that scene intentionally ambigious. If you look closely at the scene there is a tiny bit of rotation upwards. It may have been possible to save kowalski but it may have been not and he as a person made his decision because he thought it would be best. The error then is rather in the decision making of the character instead of faulty physics i think.
Yeah, If feel like that scene is going to be controversial for a long time... Like that scene at the end of Titanic with the life raft where some people think they both could've fit but others think the buoyancy wasn't enough to hold both of them. Now we just need to get NASA to send the mythbusters up into orbit so they can test it :p.
The problem with that scene is that there was ostensibly some force pulling Clooney away, straining against the tether. But there was no force. They were in microgravity, and his momentum had been reduced to relative zero. He should have just been floating there, motionless, tethered or not. Newton wins. There's a similar problem in "Aliens" that always bugs me, when the marine dropship initially departs the Nostromo... they "detach", and start plummeting planetward... but they should have just floated away slowly; the dropshop was in the same orbit as the Nostromo, Cameron should have known better.
Gravity haters flocks to these videos to get confirmation from Neil on their hatred of this movie, yet they seem to miss the last 10 seconds where he says what he actually thinks of it. If he can enjoy a movie despite scientific inaccuracies, then why can't you?
I enjoyed the movie too. Totally agree about the final scene. While watching it I was thinking, if it was me, would have landed in the middle of ocean welcomed by sharks or drowned by huge waves 🤣🤣🤣
Sandra's character wasn't repairing the Hubble Space Telescope--another astronaut was doing that. She was installing a new device that was spun off from a medical imaging device she used an a doctor. Therefore, she was the most qualified person for the installation. Is it a stretch? Absolutely. But not completely ridiculous.
Hate to break it to you, but I still don't think he wants you to perform open heart surgery on him, buddy. Nice job having multiple life skills though.
Hey SIMKENTETICS, we're having some trouble on the Hubble Space Telescope! We might need you up there... You know, with your medical experience and such... :p
This is reminiscent of the truth of scientific method vs. popular opinion in general. Science is always 99% right on the cusp of change, but takes the 1% left over very seriously. In other words, science likes to focus on and improve its own errors rather than pat itself on the back for its successes. By contrast, popular opinion responds immediately and emotionally to criticism. Tyson's instincts were scientific, and honored the scientific method well. Love, but criticize. Appreciate, but improve.
I was thinking the same thing. Never got myself to watch the movie until today, I've got to say it did deserve every oscar it got. The story was okay for what it was, but the audio, the effects, the emotion in Sandra's acting was beyond perfect, not to mention the overall beauty of every scene in the movie. "Boring and repetitive"? Well gee you sure have got it all figured out haven't you?
lari nenonen I agree. Ever since the convoluted and overambitious "Interstellar" came out, it's become popular to hate on Gravity for just being the gorgeous, simplistic space thriller that it was. I loved Bullock's performance and thought Clooney was great as well.
I agree, I watched because everyone was saying how good it was. I just finished Interstellar 30 minutes ago... now that was an amazing Sci-Fi movie! I usually like reality over fantasy, but Interstellar greatly outclassed Gravity in story.
Again Neil deGrasse Tyson makes great points. I have loved Star Trek ever since I watched the first episode but I always recognized inconsistencies in the science. An example from Star Trek where they anticipated the future but only got it partially right; my cell phone (outdated) looks like a communicator, yet they didn't predict that we would still hold it up to the side of our head.
Keep being you Neil. Dude has been my hero since i seen him on i think TLC.On a show discussing Pluto losing planet status. And he said something to the effect of. It doesn't matter how many school kids write me letters it doesn't change my mind.....lol. In this era of hurting someones feelings being a bigger crime than actually hurting them. That statement was awesomely cold.
While gravity is essential for life as we know it, there are aspects of Earth's gravitational patterns that may be more complex than we realize. Ongoing plate tectonics, for example, could subtly influence the planet's gravitational field, creating variations that resemble some of the forces experienced in space. As tectonic plates shift and the Earth's crust moves, it may create slight changes in gravitational patterns, affecting everything from the flow of oceans to potentially influencing human health in unforeseen ways. This complexity, coupled with the lack of effective environmental stewardship, raises concerns about how these natural forces could exacerbate environmental challenges. The failure to properly care for our environment, especially in the face of these shifting forces, may leave us unprepared for the long-term consequences, including potential impacts on both Earth's gravity and the health of future generations.
Films are an artform , and gravity is an immersive spiritual experience to me. ergo , films many times to hone their philosophical side had to cut short on plausibility and reasoning and that to me , make it a lot more fun than to be just satisfied by it's science and cerebral sides. i understand your point to enlighten people just about the facts on which gravity compromised for it's story's sake , otherwise , as you said , you had an amazing experience. so be it !
I liked the movie too. Also have it on DVD as well. Almost every movie has those bits that just aren't right. Just enjoy the movie, if it's good. It's ok to point out flaws or even laugh at the mistakes. Don't let a few wrong things ruin a good movie.
The only thing that jumped out to me was when they first learn that satellites are being destroyed, George Clooney's Character says something like "There goes everyone's facebook." Which is not true, the internet doesn't use satellites for communications, it uses cable across land and on the ocean floor for going to other continents. So it would have been better to say HBO or something like that. But you could argue it was just an off-the-cuff statement not to be taken too seriously, which I can agree.
Grizzly Bear Lol ok dude. Whatever, just telling the truth. The internet uses ground and ocean cables, not satellites. Link below. www.newscientist.com/gallery/mg20227061900-exploring-the-exploding-internet
i had some time durring christmas and watched interstellar and gravity, both in same day.. after interstellar i was like, ok, this shows all theories i have heard about before from documentaries, i found some parts to be just hollywood cheap ideas however i enjoyed it, and i wished it lasted not 3 but 6 hours to explain all those theories deeply and show all those scifi inventions in details. After interstellar i wanted to watch more so i decided to try gravity this time. From begining till the end i was like what the hell is that. everything was sooo unreal. eg. when she catched wire and held that hero, what force threw him away? they were not spining just floating still, she held him but hero flew away as if he fell into canyon. And the trip in open space to another space station come on. what distance would they have to fly over? what speed? each satelite is moving very fast. even if they had such luck to hit some they would crash in high speed and die. And when she get it back to earth. after being in space she would be too weak and need to get used to gravity, she would hardly get out and swim safely to beach.. gravity is really bad in my opinion, and has nothing with scifi. it is just fiction. or comedy.
In addition, I thought that there was a problem about Sandra Bollock's character: I mean, she had a personal tragedy that made her drive around every evening, and then, she kind of all of a sudden, I suppose, decided she wanted to become an astronaut?!??!?!?
She is not a full-time astronaut in the movie. She is a Mission Specialist or so called Payload Specialist. These people are on space flights for certain tasks that only specialists can accomplish.
miljenko1 Oh really? In the movie it's implied that she didn't give up her normal job at all and that she was doing research and development used on this particular mission. Also you don't really know if she made the decision to go into space "all of a sudden", could have also been a long term decision.
Captain Princess I remember that. The best part was when the title frame had the commentary that said "yes, it really is him". Imagine. An impersonated Neil DeGrasse Tyson guest starring on Cinema Sins.
Even I, as (I think at the time) a high school teenager, was immensely annoyed by the scene where Clooney drifts into space. The tether catches him and his motion stops. They are still at the time attached to the ship and at that moment neither of them are in motion and there is no outside force pulling him outward. There is absolutely no reason for him to still drift away when the tether is cut.
Sending a medical doctor to space, yes its a mistake. She says she is a medical doctor, then later she says she is a mission specialist. Gravity film is an example of great film making. It is focused more on its screenplay than science. In Science test, grammar is ignored. Just like that see the film making of Gravity. Its short in length. Keep it short and very good film, this is what always impress. Hence, they did not have time to drop Dr. Stone in middle of Ocean and then explain how she escaped :)
But I heard the astronauts are good in everything. They aren't any specialist in one specific thing, but in everything. There is only one person who is different, that is the pilot.
Well, I think the movie is boring and without any substance to it. I don't know what the point of it is. It's not a good SciFi with some good plot, it's a bad drama in a weird setting.
The point is mortality and fighting for something even when you know it's all gone anyway. And it's not a SciFi movie and neither a drama, drama may be its tertiary genre but it's not the primary genre of the movie
ThatGuyNamedElliot what genre is it then? IMDB certainly disagrees with you: "Sci-Fi | Thriller" tho personaly I didn't find anything thrilling about it, I was bored to death.
Ludak021 Science Fiction doesn't cover this film plus the IMDB tags are user generated. The genre quite clearly comes under Adventure Thriller. And just because you didn't find it thrilling doesn't mean you can remove the genre from the film for the rest of us. I, Myself found it to be a highly immersing film and rather thrilling
ThatGuyNamedElliot I don't want to argue tastes or imdb tags (let's just say I'll take imdb classification over yours any time), but if this was thrilling to you, do not watch "The Game" you might get heart attack :)
Ludak021 well we all have personal preference and I know my genres as I've worked as a screenwriter for nearly 5 years now. Yes, I did find it thrilling, I thought the action was set up perfectly and the direction was amazing, You must have watched a different film if you were not immersed
One time I envisioned the satellites as an explanation quite vividly. I experimented with a heavy metal helmet and salinated towel to disrupt potential radioactivity. The experiment failed to end or affect the visions in any way.
Nothing bothered me with this movie. Why? Because it is a science fiction movie. And I enjoyed it as such. Therefore, the most you can really expect out of it is really just entertainment. Had this been a documentary. Then sure, we can all sit back and complain about how "stuff like this doesn't happen like that, because of physics and shit". The true critique on this movie should be whether you enjoyed the movie or not? Was the acting up to snuff to draw you in on key points? If we are now going to consider science fiction movies based on real-life physics, then can someone please explain how in the ending of Alien. Ripley is able to hold on to a ladder while there is a space vacuum that sucks out the alien and shes able to not only survive the vacuum pressure but also pull herself up. Also how does the Alien scream after its pulled out into space? There is nothing in space to for the waves of sound to travel with. No sound.
Sandra Bullock as Dr. Ryan Stone, a medical engineer. Medical engineers are regularly employed by hospitals and clinics, making sure medical equipment is running properly.
But most of the water is sticking to the skin. Those droplets are floating because there is too much water on the skin of the astronaut, so it breaks off.
The funny fact is : whatever could happen in space, and that NASA would never send a doctor to fix hubble, by my side, I wouldn't go to theater to watch a documentary about space.. I would watch it on discovery channel.. Gravity was a big emotional moment, and still a big one in bluray. Just watched it this morning. I think its one of the greatest movies I've seen. Interstellar was great also.
2:16 THANK YOOOOOOU!!!! There was no reason for that "Cliffhanger" like suspense death of a main character in zero gravity...simply tug him back towards you
Dr. Tyson... You still get it wrong. Dr. Ryan is not a medical doctor. That is an incorrect inference on your part based on the statement that her lab was in the basement of a hospital. That does not mean she is a Medical Doctor, that could be just where she had her lab because her work was for a Medical imaging system. You just ASSUME that meant she is a Medical Doctor.
Jason Zhao Because she is a Phd. Bio-medical Engineer who inventing a scanning device which was approved by NASA to be used on the Hubble Space Telescope. Stone trained and was offered to install the device and spend a week in space. WHAT NOW????
The more I reread it............ so am I.............. no but seriously, it was in the actual screenplay, all the details not mentioned in the script. Take them for what you will, realistic or unrealistic, but the fabricated answers are there.
I had a problem when he got cut loose to die, in that situation he would have stopped "falling" away from her, the material would have snapped back and both could easily have lived
Did he forget to mention that a medical doctor could pull of an extremely hard maneuver in a capsule that was made in another country with a different language? The chance of hitting the right button is incredibly low.
GuiltyMiner0343 Actually her character is a Medical Engineer. These folks are experts when it comes to operate and to repair certain technical devices. More plausible now?
I think the landing in the lake scene conveyed the notion that even though Bullock's character made it back to earth, she still wasn't safe and had to fight her way out of the water and to the shoreline. Only then was her journey over and she could rest for a moment. It gave gravity (pun intended) to the fact that humans are fragile and we can only live in a very narrow set of circumstances, even on our own planet.
My main problem, as far as Suspension of Disbelief was bunjee jumping (in a Soyuz) around the ISS breaking up in a Kessler Field. Adding to the Kessler Field. IDK what the probability of that happening, without breaking something in the Soyuz (Like IDK, the Life Support? It's basically an aluminum bubble) but I'm going to estimate them as Astronomical.
No, actually I think they did pretty well on that part. Seems like there was only breathing, and sounds being transferred through solid objects. I can't really even place one example of why I hated it. Just the whole thing felt wrong. It's like they tried too hard to make it suspenseful, which ended up making it all unbelievable and a bit over the top. And there were a lot of small inaccuracies that wouldn't bother most people, but it got under my skin.
This is why you should try to avoid most movies where you're a "subject expert." Or try to suspend your disbelief. I'm the same way when it comes to war movies because I served in the military. However, "Fury," which was mostly inaccurate, I loved because they got the characters right; the type of people you would run into in the military.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie but I knew even as I watched it without aid of a degree in astrophysics that hopping from space station to space station was not a likely scenario.
Sandra Bullock's character was actually a biomedical engineer, not a medical doctor or surgeon. She specializes in scanning devices and she was sent to space to repair the scanning device she had built for the telescope.
Jason Zhao Roughly speaking, depending on where you are on earth. However what you have stated here is not the force of gravity. It is the average rate of gravitational acceleration on earth.
A few things bothered me about the movie, and the apparent lack of stars wasn't it. 1. when the corpses of the crew floated into view, they were just normal looking, I was under the impression that a corpse in the vacuum of space would be severely bloated. 2. after she landed in the pond, debris were seen falling in the sky. In the previous scene, the capsule she was in was traveling slower than the rest of the debris around it, then a parachute opened which slowed the descent of the capsule even more, then she had time to splash down, sink, get out, swim up to the surface and crawl onto shore and the debris that were traveling faster than her capsule were just then seen entering the atmosphere. 3. muted sound could be heard in the vacuum of space on several occasions. 4. some of the reactions to things that happened didn't seem believable, also I don't think anybody with the capability to do so is dumb enough to blow up a satellite. that was probably the farthest stretch in the movie. Overall a movie with good graphics and serious potential that was failed to be delivered on. Seemed more like a movie made for the sole purpose of showing off how gracefully Sandra Bullock had aged than anything else.
1. You would look pretty normal. Your air would immediately rush out of your lungs faster than you would be able to hold your breath. Your bowels would immediately release. All liquids (blood, saliva, mucus) would immediately boil and become gaseous (ebullism), so because your blood expands into a gaseous state, you would swell a bit, particularly your hands and feet, but not by much. All of this would happen in approx. 15 seconds. You wouldn't be bloated, your eyes wouldn't pop out of your head, your body wouldn't burst apart. 2. There was A LOT of debris. Some behind her, some before her.
Good!! Expose this garbage movie. Interstellar makes Gravity look like kindergarten playtime, but simple minds require simple stimulation, and nothing more or else they shut off.
Toshirozawa exactly. and that is the reason why it is sad to see rating of gravity higher than rating of interstellar. most of people rather just watch without thinking
Imrais Gravity is a movie. A movie made in Hollywood. You can release an incredibly realistic movie, but have a poor script and bad actors, then you have a bad movie. Acting and plot are all that matter.
I liked Interstellar, but I liked Gravity too. Remember it's not always about how scientifically accurate a fantasy movie is but there are several elements to a film that makes it good. Not just the facts. It would be better if they were more accurate. It would be a plus. But most movies we've grown up watching showed inaccuracies. I don't see why that would make a movie like Gravity 'garbage'. It's a great film.
Toshirozawa Interstellar is a piece of garbage. Nothing in that movie is realistic, at least Gravity has to do with space and not fairytale planets that we are never going to explore.
The Mark of a Great Scientist: He doesn't Attack or Argue, he Clarifies based on Facts. He is also Ready to add I didn't say it Perfect that 1st time. I've learned so much when he talks! Hugs!
RJ Lee The cinematography was absolutely phenomenal. The acting from Bullock and Clooney was revolutionary, and the technology used to make it was outstanding.
Stupid Prodigy I dont agree. There is nothing "phenomenal" in having movie thats 80% CGI these days. Revolutionary acting? Nonsense. It was normal acting for actors like them. There was no revolution. You cant say Oscar winning actors that have been in the business for 20-30 years suddenly become "revolutionary". The technology was also nothing out of the ordinary. While some practical effects were used, the majority was again - run of the mill CGI. The story was beyond ridiculous, that in itself made it borderline unwatchable for me. Classic Hollywood, zero originality and the movie as a whole made absolutely no sense.
Scientists should be appreciated for informing us of the real scientific phenomena even if it spoils the joy of a "deceiving" sci-fi movie a little bit! Just like the truth, say, of evolution, should be preferred over the myths that might even make people feel good.
I have to disagree with Neil (again...) there's no place in the known universe with cero gravity. Gravity is a universal force and the use of zero-g term gives the wrong idea and should be stopped and changed to microgravity which is the real term.
I just want you to know, that when a scientist uses the term "zero-g", it does not mean zero gravity. Zero-g means zero g-force. As in when you're in space, it's considered zero-g because you don't physically feel any g-forces.
cabose105 I know, it's a very common term now a days but still it doesn't mean cero g force, there's no such thing as cero g force. No matter were in the universe you are, the pull from the earth has effect. The true term is microgravity and that is the one that should be used instead of zero-g because it gives the right idea that even if you are floating in the space (or free falling like in the space stations) you still are being affected by gravity, saying zero g to someone gives the idea that there's no gravity and that's is not true. Don't you get it?!
ALPHA DESIGN Creative Studio Of course there is no place in the known universe with zero gravity and neil never claimed there was. Stop putting words in his mouth.
He didn't mention the airlock doors that open outwards :-D Every single one in the movie from Tiangong to ISS and Soyuz opens outwards. In reality , such doors are ALWAYS constructed to be opened inwards. The reason for this is obvious. To make what happens in Gravity, like the door getting ripped open by accident,..simply impossible ;-)
She landed near land because it could happen, therefore it happened. I agree with the thesis that movies ought to be more realistic, which can be done without sacrificing spectacle. What if Sandra had landed in an escape pod in the middle of the ocean, and floated? Who would find her? How?
SCIENTIFIC QUESTION: At what point in water's mass (think about filling up a cup, a bathtub, a pool, a lake, an ocean) does gravity change its physical effects on water allowing water to no longer need a container to hold its level? More simply put, at what point does water start curving AROUND something instead of needing to be contained IN something?
The part that I didn't like was the fact that the debris kept intercepting the protagonist when in reality, they usually never intersect again. Another was when Kowalski kept on burning extra RCS when he didn't need to and ended up having to sacrifice himself. Then there was the fact that one explosion caused the destruction 3 major space stations with in less than 2 hours.
It's really scary to know that even someone as respected and brilliant as Neil deGrasse Tyson had to make sure people knew he enjoyed a movie before they'd tolerate him criticizing its use of science. He's an astrophysicist talking about the scientific validity of a sci-fi movie for fun, so why should it matter to anyone whether he enjoyed the movie or not?
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
"You wouldn't send a medical doctor to repair a satelite more than you would send a mechanical engineer to do open heart surgery."
I NEVER ASKED FOR THIS
+Paul Staker Best DEXHR reference yet!
Anon E. Mus :D
That is paraphrased, not quoted
That is paraphrased, not quoted
PapaKay
That is paraphrased, not quoted
Constructive criticism is often misinterpreted as just criticism.
+Kobyashi Criticism is often misinterpreted as dislike.
+Santa Claus It's nothing personal, it's just business.
+Kobyashi and whats wrong with criticism?
+Efe Ozata Nothing, except that it is a natural human condition to instinctively block criticism unless you make it into constructive criticism.
That way the person who is being criticized doesn't feel like they are completely wrong, but rather just not completely perfect.
It's like the old adage of the glass half full/half empty:
Constructive criticism is like evaluating someone as one would look at a glass half full. It is saying that some of what you're doing is great, but other parts need work.
Simply criticizing someone without the constructive element is like looking at them like a glass half empty, and will get you nowhere, because unlike the glass, humans have a choice to cooperate and generally will not do so when they feel that someone has challenged them or exposed their flaws without trying to work with them and help one another.
What's wrong with criticism? Well if you're a normal, well balanced, mentally stable and open minded human being; nothing. If you are an SJW however, then it's aggression, misogyny, bullying and homophobia.
Neil deGrasse would be great at *Cinema Sins*
Do you know that they they had him on cinemasins to do this movie?
no never saw the eww Gravity
**DING**
And the tweets in this video were said by Neil in the cinema sins video
CinemaSins is the worst type of criticism. DeGrasse is too good for that.
came into this thinking it was Neil debunking newtons concept of gravity with theory of relativity.
+Damstraight68 As did I.....
+Damstraight68 sure did myself.... -_____-'
+Damstraight68 I too thought that lol
+Damstraight68 Yep!
+Damstraight68 same there :D
Cinema is a form of art, and just like any art those who enjoy a piece tend to be defensive when that piece of art is attacked. It's kind of a flaw in our egos, in that we can't always accept that something we enjoy/love/appreciate is only 90% correct and 10% wrong. I like that Tyson can say "Hey, these are some things that are wrong with Gravity" while also saying "Hey, I really enjoyed it". Criticism and Praise do not have to be mutually exclusive.
I bet the film creators would shoot themselves if Tyson was on the set during filming.
Director: Okay Sandra. You're now floating in space and you're terrified.
Neil: Actually...
Director: SHUT THE FUCK UP NEIL
Iron Man Ultron LMAO
Iron Man Ultron I loled :D
fuck i would shoot myself if i was on the set.. that fucking movie sucked just sandra bullocks (nut sack) crying like a little bitch the whole movie.. totally out of control stupid
centozo in fact that would have been great
gravity is overhyped bullshit just like interstellar
There's one thing I'll have to disagree with: while NdgT is, of course, absolutely right that it is very unlikely to land near a shore, it doesn't mean it's *impossible*. She just got lucky.
Agree with you, but I don't think NdGT said it was impossible, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely. Sandra Bullock is literally the LUCKIEST person to ever live!!
SHE WAS UP ALL NIGHT TO GET LUCKY
UncleBiscuits79 And she survived getting hit by debris, getting scorched by fire, nearly drowning, and she survived 90 minutes without facebook
Asger dokkedal Yup, Lottery time
The place she landed... you would have better lucky hitting the lottery. Honestly it was the last part that really made me wonder if everything was a dream or alternate reality all over again. The odds of her just strolling to a beach like that on top of everything she already went through was just too much.
Hey! the Hubble Telescope could have been sick.
If Hubble had a virus they should have sent Jeff Goldblum :-P
Excuse me, Mr. Tyson, We didn't send just a medical doctor to repair the Hubble Space Telescope; we sent Sandra Bullock.
Even more extraordinary, she plays an woman astronaut that has no experience in outer space but survives one catastrophe after another alone in space. Now that is what I call affirmative action!
+Jeffrey314159 That's right! Who would ever think of putting a woman into space?
Or even having a Black man as an Astrophysicist! It could never happen.........
+broomers3 lol
+broomers3 its more like a woman who can't fly a shuttle and isn't an engineer oh yeah and can't listen to orders and is somehow the one to survive yet she is the reason george clooney dies
+jred7 If they had sent Chuck Norris it would make sense. Chuck Norris can do anything. But Sandra Bullock?
ladies and gentlemen, the professor everyone would like to have in their classroom.
Correct! : )
NO I think he is a big fake
@@ryanregmi6749 you love being lied to
Hmm
not everyone
I don't think Bullock landed in "some lake." I think it might have been either the Ganges or the Nile (the Nile is focused in one space shot, and the Ganges is referenced by Clooney). Both rivers are mythical spawn points for life, and, considering the re-birth theme of the movie, it would thematically make sense for her to crawl from either of them.
yah, the Nile is not blue though, and there's plenty of man-eating crocodiles there
Spoiler alert! (skip this if you haven't seen the movie and don't want... well, spoilers!)
Something that really bugged me was when George Clooney had to cut himself from Sandra Bullock, he did this because something was pulling him and in turn her away from the satellite. But there was nothing there to pull him, there was only tension in the rope, nothing else, so he should not have been pulled off in the opposite direction, so he shouldn't have had to cut loose and kill himself. This just annoyed me a little because it's a major part of the plot and is so unjustified, they could have had some sort of shrapnel cut him off.
lolz what are the odds of that happening? Pointless suicide makes so much more sense!
This annoyed me so flipping much that I had to stop watching the movie.
"he did this because something was pulling him"
There was nothing pulling him. Objects that move in space - like astronauts - will continue to move until an opposing force will stop them. The rope around Sandra's leg wasn't able to stop their movement so they continued to move away from the ISS.
After Clooney cut himself loose there was much less mass to absorb by the ropes, only Sandra was left, so the decelarating effect of the rope around her leg was able to stop her while George drifted away.
Libertinus79 This is not true. He already stoped because of the repelling force of the rope. There are only three outcomes to this scenario in zero g.
ONE: The rope is not strong enough and breaks. Than both George Clooney and Sandra Bullock would have gone into space.
TWO: The repelling force of the rope is strong enough to stop them. Now both George and Sandra would stop Moving even if you cut the rope because both forces were equal.
THREE: The repelling force of the rope is so strong, that it would pull George Clooney and Sandra Bullock back to the spacestation.
Libertinus79 No, if you watch the clip, the rope had already decelerated them, but something kept accelerating clooney away, but there was nothing there to accelerate him away, that was my point.
Gravity is a great Space Drama that becomes quite intense and emotionally draining. However, its focus is more on the energy and emotional journey this woman goes through. Interstellar is a space Drama that has the gift of a long runtime. It has time to get the science right and get the drama and emotional connection right. Sure, it took its liberties, as any science fiction is bound to do, but it also nailed both parts equally well. Both films are great in their own distinct ways, and both benefit from an insanely talented director, but they both serve very different purposes.
"I agree, totally."
-Dr. Smith, Lost in Space
Do you remember writing this comment btw? Is your account still there? Are you even alive today?
@@physicslover4951 🤣😂😅
Neil is the man. Love the way he breaks down science in laymens terms.
Carlos m stfu with you ignorant veiw of the world
Intersteller is better
+Light Yagami you sir have seen the light
+Bre Fujimoto you madam are the light
+Faraz Bolourian And you have to know "she" is actually a dude.
+Light Yagami "THE POWER OF LOVE TRANSCENDS SPACE AND TIMEEEEE!!!", yeahhhh ok Interstellar.
+drthsons Dot it is though
NdGT is the probably coolest intellectual personality in the world.
in the public eye...
what about Michio Kaku?
Wayne Hedd That's why he said intellectual personality, not intellectual
I prefer Sheldon Cooper
Elon Musk!
Two things really bothered me most in Gravity (there were more, but those are the ones that I really remembered). One: where in the security line scene when Sandra has a foot caught up in the wreckage and she has George straped to her. I realize the inertia would fling Clooney into space and take Sandra with him so he decides to unhook and save his colleague from being ripped from those cables and drift of into space with him. But by the time he disconnects he's already slowed down by the safety line. What I mean is, if he didn't detach himself before the line was stretched to it's max it would have no point doing it after, when the gross of the momentum was already aplied to the tug and therefore transmited to the other body. If the whole idea of his sacrifice was to prevent Sandras foot to come loose from the additional momentum generated by his mass, than he should have detached much earlier before he could transmit the energy to her. Maybe I just missed something though.
Two:The moment when Sandra opens up a pressurised hatch. Such a violent reaction of a slab of metal would have probably killed her and most certain catapult her into space. That's only my estimation but I think that such a heavy suit and her mass would produce a great amount of momentum and g-force, surely capable of overwhealming a human handgip. I know it's Hollywood, but still...
"If the whole idea of his sacrifice was to prevent Sandras foot to come loose from the additional momentum generated by his mass, than he should have detached much earlier before he could transmit the energy to her."
The characters in the movie are still humans with emotions although Kowalski is portrayed as a super cool astronaut most of the time.
I mean basically Kowalski could have refused to grab Sandra's tether in the first place to give her a greater chance of survival but his live depended on it and he waited how the whole situation plays out.
Ok, I understand but by this time his sacrifice had no point because he would already give the peak force to her and would not pull the tether any stronger than he already did. So at this poin he migt aswell stay hooked because letting go would not help any more. The only way to help would be decupling before the tug to the line. I admit that if the cables around her leg did not stretch to their limit than there was the danger that he would pull her off of those, but they were stretched and she was pulling at the tether so the force was already transmitted. Moreover, he would even bounce back tword her after the line tug.
mj .twardy I think the makers of the movie made that scene intentionally ambigious. If you look closely at the scene there is a tiny bit of rotation upwards. It may have been possible to save kowalski but it may have been not and he as a person made his decision because he thought it would be best. The error then is rather in the decision making of the character instead of faulty physics i think.
Yeah, If feel like that scene is going to be controversial for a long time... Like that scene at the end of Titanic with the life raft where some people think they both could've fit but others think the buoyancy wasn't enough to hold both of them. Now we just need to get NASA to send the mythbusters up into orbit so they can test it :p.
The problem with that scene is that there was ostensibly some force pulling Clooney away, straining against the tether. But there was no force. They were in microgravity, and his momentum had been reduced to relative zero. He should have just been floating there, motionless, tethered or not. Newton wins. There's a similar problem in "Aliens" that always bugs me, when the marine dropship initially departs the Nostromo... they "detach", and start plummeting planetward... but they should have just floated away slowly; the dropshop was in the same orbit as the Nostromo, Cameron should have known better.
Gravity haters flocks to these videos to get confirmation from Neil on their hatred of this movie, yet they seem to miss the last 10 seconds where he says what he actually thinks of it.
If he can enjoy a movie despite scientific inaccuracies, then why can't you?
exactly! 😄
+Olle Rönn the movie sucks!!!
+jorgeq
Obviously not, I mean it has more Oscars than you!
Slow-head.
This movie stinks!! The Oscars are all about politics and Jews, not good movies.
+jorgeq Maybe it's your ability to judge that stinks?
Yeah, i'm pretty sure that's it.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, epitomises the expression "A gentleman and a scholar".
why cant film makers hire some1 like neil to fact check the script before the movie?
rubikfan1 They did it in interestellar.
I assume it's because a bubble of tears awkwardly sticking to your face in a blob isn't as emotional as a delicate floating drop :P that kinda thing
Because it won't make much of a difference. If a movie was based 100% on pure scientific facts, it would be as boring as real life.
Real life isnt boring.
rubikfan1 Right. Why dont you come with me and watch a two hour movie then of two people snoring?
I enjoyed the movie too. Totally agree about the final scene. While watching it I was thinking, if it was me, would have landed in the middle of ocean welcomed by sharks or drowned by huge waves 🤣🤣🤣
Sandra's character wasn't repairing the Hubble Space Telescope--another astronaut was doing that. She was installing a new device that was spun off from a medical imaging device she used an a doctor. Therefore, she was the most qualified person for the installation. Is it a stretch? Absolutely. But not completely ridiculous.
No movie is without sin
Haha! I'm a mechanical engineer who was a surgery tech (medic) in the Army!
Hate to break it to you, but I still don't think he wants you to perform open heart surgery on him, buddy. Nice job having multiple life skills though.
Meta Nexus Yeah, I suppose that maxillary-mandibular surgery might not work for the heart! ; ]
Hey SIMKENTETICS, we're having some trouble on the Hubble Space Telescope! We might need you up there... You know, with your medical experience and such... :p
SIMKINETICS Be the first to see if it does. :)
Surgery TECH. you didn't actually cut the people open did you?
Both Interstellar and Gravity are my favorite space movies, though I prefer Interstellar much more
This is reminiscent of the truth of scientific method vs. popular opinion in general. Science is always 99% right on the cusp of change, but takes the 1% left over very seriously. In other words, science likes to focus on and improve its own errors rather than pat itself on the back for its successes.
By contrast, popular opinion responds immediately and emotionally to criticism. Tyson's instincts were scientific, and honored the scientific method well. Love, but criticize. Appreciate, but improve.
Search and destroy.
Or as its called in academia, peer-review.
I could never get myself interested during the movie. Further, was this a movie worthy of that many oscars?
I was thinking the same thing. Never got myself to watch the movie until today, I've got to say it did deserve every oscar it got. The story was okay for what it was, but the audio, the effects, the emotion in Sandra's acting was beyond perfect, not to mention the overall beauty of every scene in the movie.
"Boring and repetitive"? Well gee you sure have got it all figured out haven't you?
lari nenonen I agree. Ever since the convoluted and overambitious "Interstellar" came out, it's become popular to hate on Gravity for just being the gorgeous, simplistic space thriller that it was. I loved Bullock's performance and thought Clooney was great as well.
I agree, I watched because everyone was saying how good it was. I just finished Interstellar 30 minutes ago... now that was an amazing Sci-Fi movie! I usually like reality over fantasy, but Interstellar greatly outclassed Gravity in story.
chickengonewild I was not a fan either. Pretty boring.
chickengonewild no
This guy is great. Love hearing about space and the universe from him.
I know where Neil DeGrasse Tyson is coming from, Jurassic Park is my favorite movie ever, but I can still pick apart the inaccuracies.
Again Neil deGrasse Tyson makes great points. I have loved Star Trek ever since I watched the first episode but I always recognized inconsistencies in the science. An example from Star Trek where they anticipated the future but only got it partially right; my cell phone (outdated) looks like a communicator, yet they didn't predict that we would still hold it up to the side of our head.
Keep being you Neil. Dude has been my hero since i seen him on i think TLC.On a show discussing Pluto losing planet status. And he said something to the effect of. It doesn't matter how many school kids write me letters it doesn't change my mind.....lol. In this era of hurting someones feelings being a bigger crime than actually hurting them. That statement was awesomely cold.
Kneel the grass typhoon.
BobHoppaFlotchkin bond naps and feet
Mekk Mehq
MikedizzleV Mick Ediz Love
Mekk Meh Ehck
MikedizzleV Mack Dies Leave
In Tyson we thrust!
While gravity is essential for life as we know it, there are aspects of Earth's gravitational patterns that may be more complex than we realize. Ongoing plate tectonics, for example, could subtly influence the planet's gravitational field, creating variations that resemble some of the forces experienced in space. As tectonic plates shift and the Earth's crust moves, it may create slight changes in gravitational patterns, affecting everything from the flow of oceans to potentially influencing human health in unforeseen ways. This complexity, coupled with the lack of effective environmental stewardship, raises concerns about how these natural forces could exacerbate environmental challenges. The failure to properly care for our environment, especially in the face of these shifting forces, may leave us unprepared for the long-term consequences, including potential impacts on both Earth's gravity and the health of future generations.
Films are an artform , and gravity is an immersive spiritual experience to me. ergo , films many times to hone their philosophical side had to cut short on plausibility and reasoning and that to me , make it a lot more fun than to be just satisfied by it's science and cerebral sides. i understand your point to enlighten people just about the facts on which gravity compromised for it's story's sake , otherwise , as you said , you had an amazing experience. so be it !
I liked the movie too. Also have it on DVD as well. Almost every movie has those bits that just aren't right. Just enjoy the movie, if it's good. It's ok to point out flaws or even laugh at the mistakes. Don't let a few wrong things ruin a good movie.
He made some great points.
1:46 Nobody is going to survive a fall greater than 60 ft into water. And especially not from orbital height.
The only thing that jumped out to me was when they first learn that satellites are being destroyed, George Clooney's Character says something like "There goes everyone's facebook." Which is not true, the internet doesn't use satellites for communications, it uses cable across land and on the ocean floor for going to other continents. So it would have been better to say HBO or something like that. But you could argue it was just an off-the-cuff statement not to be taken too seriously, which I can agree.
Grizzly Bear Lol ok dude. Whatever, just telling the truth. The internet uses ground and ocean cables, not satellites. Link below.
www.newscientist.com/gallery/mg20227061900-exploring-the-exploding-internet
Marley robertson man grizzly bear doesn't fuck around haha
MrFunk911 I guess not lol.
MrFunk911 lmfao this comment made my day
i had some time durring christmas and watched interstellar and gravity, both in same day.. after interstellar i was like, ok, this shows all theories i have heard about before from documentaries, i found some parts to be just hollywood cheap ideas however i enjoyed it, and i wished it lasted not 3 but 6 hours to explain all those theories deeply and show all those scifi inventions in details. After interstellar i wanted to watch more so i decided to try gravity this time. From begining till the end i was like what the hell is that. everything was sooo unreal. eg. when she catched wire and held that hero, what force threw him away? they were not spining just floating still, she held him but hero flew away as if he fell into canyon. And the trip in open space to another space station come on. what distance would they have to fly over? what speed? each satelite is moving very fast. even if they had such luck to hit some they would crash in high speed and die. And when she get it back to earth. after being in space she would be too weak and need to get used to gravity, she would hardly get out and swim safely to beach.. gravity is really bad in my opinion, and has nothing with scifi. it is just fiction. or comedy.
In addition, I thought that there was a problem about Sandra Bollock's character: I mean, she had a personal tragedy that made her drive around every evening, and then, she kind of all of a sudden, I suppose, decided she wanted to become an astronaut?!??!?!?
She is not a full-time astronaut in the movie. She is a Mission Specialist or so called Payload Specialist. These people are on space flights for certain tasks that only specialists can accomplish.
Libertinus79
She fits the bill even less now.
miljenko1
Oh really? In the movie it's implied that she didn't give up her normal job at all and that she was doing research and development used on this particular mission.
Also you don't really know if she made the decision to go into space "all of a sudden", could have also been a long term decision.
PTSD?
The tweets were funny and light hearted. People need to lighten up.
dude he even guest-starred on cinema sins for Gravity
Captain Princess I remember that. The best part was when the title frame had the commentary that said "yes, it really is him".
Imagine. An impersonated Neil DeGrasse Tyson guest starring on Cinema Sins.
Even I, as (I think at the time) a high school teenager, was immensely annoyed by the scene where Clooney drifts into space. The tether catches him and his motion stops. They are still at the time attached to the ship and at that moment neither of them are in motion and there is no outside force pulling him outward. There is absolutely no reason for him to still drift away when the tether is cut.
Sending a medical doctor to space, yes its a mistake. She says she is a medical doctor, then later she says she is a mission specialist.
Gravity film is an example of great film making. It is focused more on its screenplay than science. In Science test, grammar is ignored. Just like that see the film making of Gravity. Its short in length. Keep it short and very good film, this is what always impress. Hence, they did not have time to drop Dr. Stone in middle of Ocean and then explain how she escaped :)
But I heard the astronauts are good in everything. They aren't any specialist in one specific thing, but in everything. There is only one person who is different, that is the pilot.
0:45 That surface tension effect is used to localize propellants within the tanks to provide gas-free liquid to the engines.
Well, I think the movie is boring and without any substance to it. I don't know what the point of it is. It's not a good SciFi with some good plot, it's a bad drama in a weird setting.
The point is mortality and fighting for something even when you know it's all gone anyway. And it's not a SciFi movie and neither a drama, drama may be its tertiary genre but it's not the primary genre of the movie
ThatGuyNamedElliot
what genre is it then? IMDB certainly disagrees with you: "Sci-Fi | Thriller" tho personaly I didn't find anything thrilling about it, I was bored to death.
Ludak021 Science Fiction doesn't cover this film plus the IMDB tags are user generated. The genre quite clearly comes under Adventure Thriller. And just because you didn't find it thrilling doesn't mean you can remove the genre from the film for the rest of us. I, Myself found it to be a highly immersing film and rather thrilling
ThatGuyNamedElliot
I don't want to argue tastes or imdb tags (let's just say I'll take imdb classification over yours any time), but if this was thrilling to you, do not watch "The Game" you might get heart attack :)
Ludak021 well we all have personal preference and I know my genres as I've worked as a screenwriter for nearly 5 years now. Yes, I did find it thrilling, I thought the action was set up perfectly and the direction was amazing, You must have watched a different film if you were not immersed
One time I envisioned the satellites as an explanation quite vividly. I experimented with a heavy metal helmet and salinated towel to disrupt potential radioactivity. The experiment failed to end or affect the visions in any way.
"total satellite destruction, don't do it" lol
Thanks, Neil. I'm actually doing a criticism essay on the movie "Gravity".
Nothing bothered me with this movie. Why? Because it is a science fiction movie. And I enjoyed it as such. Therefore, the most you can really expect out of it is really just entertainment. Had this been a documentary. Then sure, we can all sit back and complain about how "stuff like this doesn't happen like that, because of physics and shit". The true critique on this movie should be whether you enjoyed the movie or not? Was the acting up to snuff to draw you in on key points? If we are now going to consider science fiction movies based on real-life physics, then can someone please explain how in the ending of Alien. Ripley is able to hold on to a ladder while there is a space vacuum that sucks out the alien and shes able to not only survive the vacuum pressure but also pull herself up. Also how does the Alien scream after its pulled out into space? There is nothing in space to for the waves of sound to travel with. No sound.
where do you see sci-fi? It`s catastrofic film
Sandra Bullock as Dr. Ryan Stone, a medical engineer.
Medical engineers are regularly employed by hospitals and clinics, making sure medical equipment is running properly.
0:46 there is a drop of water floating out of frame on the right soooo....
But most of the water is sticking to the skin. Those droplets are floating because there is too much water on the skin of the astronaut, so it breaks off.
I agree with Mr. Tyson. Gravity was an awesome movie but there are some technical things that are wrong!
Mystery's of Gravity: What was the reason to put Cluney in to space? He was doing literaly nothing but annoying everyone and wasting jetpack fuel.
You didn't even spell his name right
+FearTheBlades He doesn't deserve his name written right.
The funny fact is : whatever could happen in space, and that NASA would never send a doctor to fix hubble, by my side, I wouldn't go to theater to watch a documentary about space.. I would watch it on discovery channel..
Gravity was a big emotional moment, and still a big one in bluray. Just watched it this morning. I think its one of the greatest movies I've seen. Interstellar was great also.
To bad Tyson wasn't present during the creation. He could have made things a lot better.
“It might have had sone emotional flavour to it”😂😂😂love this man
I hate it when people take movies too seriously. -.-
2:16 THANK YOOOOOOU!!!! There was no reason for that "Cliffhanger" like suspense death of a main character in zero gravity...simply tug him back towards you
Dr. Tyson...
You still get it wrong.
Dr. Ryan is not a medical doctor. That is an incorrect inference on your part based on the statement that her lab was in the basement of a hospital. That does not mean she is a Medical Doctor, that could be just where she had her lab because her work was for a Medical imaging system.
You just ASSUME that meant she is a Medical Doctor.
Mission specialist, Dr. Ryan Stone is off structure. Man off structure!
Jason Zhao Because she is a Phd. Bio-medical Engineer who inventing a scanning device which was approved by NASA to be used on the Hubble Space Telescope. Stone trained and was offered to install the device and spend a week in space. WHAT NOW????
Jerkules I am lost
The more I reread it............ so am I.............. no but seriously, it was in the actual screenplay, all the details not mentioned in the script. Take them for what you will, realistic or unrealistic, but the fabricated answers are there.
Dr Ryan Stone, played by Sandra Bullock is a Biomedical Engineer.
I had a problem when he got cut loose to die, in that situation he would have stopped "falling" away from her, the material would have snapped back and both could easily have lived
I had to stop at spoiler alert lol.
Cathal Cleary Sandra Bullock comes out of orbit and lands in pond
Tyson enjoyed the movie? Shit then i suppose i have to check it out.
Stupid people's influence.
They put words in Tyson's mouth.
OpportunisticHunter
[citation needed]
***** ''kinda like winning the lottery, huh''
It sucked, try interstellar, thats some good shit right there.
so right
Gravity looked pretty but had no actual substance.
Yes, it actually has. It's filled with thematic brilliance. Death and rebirth. Evolution meets Religion. It's visually filled with theme.
Im currently watching cosmos from netflix and its so good document series
Did he forget to mention that a medical doctor could pull of an extremely hard maneuver in a capsule that was made in another country with a different language? The chance of hitting the right button is incredibly low.
Clooney/Kowalski mentioned in the movie that the chinese capsule is basically identical with the russian Soyuz capsule.
Libertinus79 She is still a medical doctor.
GuiltyMiner0343
Actually her character is a Medical Engineer. These folks are experts when it comes to operate and to repair certain technical devices. More plausible now?
Standardized interface. And, she knows how to pilot a Soyuz.
I think the landing in the lake scene conveyed the notion that even though Bullock's character made it back to earth, she still wasn't safe and had to fight her way out of the water and to the shoreline. Only then was her journey over and she could rest for a moment. It gave gravity (pun intended) to the fact that humans are fragile and we can only live in a very narrow set of circumstances, even on our own planet.
A J a z z S o n g
My main problem, as far as Suspension of Disbelief was bunjee jumping (in a Soyuz) around the ISS breaking up in a Kessler Field. Adding to the Kessler Field. IDK what the probability of that happening, without breaking something in the Soyuz (Like IDK, the Life Support? It's basically an aluminum bubble) but I'm going to estimate them as Astronomical.
I want to kiss this guy. I wanna kiss him good. He needs a kiss.....just look at those scientific lips.
I like how business insider post tech vids and tech insider post GOT/Anything but tech vid
I thought the movie was a pile of shit. I'm upset that he didn't hate it as much as I did. Nearly every scene sent me into a nerd rage.
No, actually I think they did pretty well on that part. Seems like there was only breathing, and sounds being transferred through solid objects. I can't really even place one example of why I hated it. Just the whole thing felt wrong. It's like they tried too hard to make it suspenseful, which ended up making it all unbelievable and a bit over the top. And there were a lot of small inaccuracies that wouldn't bother most people, but it got under my skin.
ɷɷɷɷ I Haveee Watched This Moviee Leakedddd Version Heree : - t.co/NdLgwVlw7a
This is why you should try to avoid most movies where you're a "subject expert." Or try to suspend your disbelief. I'm the same way when it comes to war movies because I served in the military. However, "Fury," which was mostly inaccurate, I loved because they got the characters right; the type of people you would run into in the military.
you gotta remember that they do that so its not boring.
So you didn't have a nerd rage; you were just raging from your own personal narrow perspective.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie but I knew even as I watched it without aid of a degree in astrophysics that hopping from space station to space station was not a likely scenario.
Science "Fiction" is the key word here
Sandra Bullock's character was actually a biomedical engineer, not a medical doctor or surgeon. She specializes in scanning devices and she was sent to space to repair the scanning device she had built for the telescope.
And I thought he was going to talk about the actual force of gravity. lol
9.81 m/s/s.
Jason Zhao Roughly speaking, depending on where you are on earth. However what you have stated here is not the force of gravity. It is the average rate of gravitational acceleration on earth.
James Benton Ticer there is no constant force of gravity as it varies with the mass.
Jason Zhao Yes it IS a constant force. Just like light IS a constant even though it travels at different speeds through different mediums.
James Benton Ticer No there isn't. F=ma, so the force varies with the mass.
A few things bothered me about the movie, and the apparent lack of stars wasn't it.
1. when the corpses of the crew floated into view, they were just normal looking, I was under the impression that a corpse in the vacuum of space would be severely bloated.
2. after she landed in the pond, debris were seen falling in the sky. In the previous scene, the capsule she was in was traveling slower than the rest of the debris around it, then a parachute opened which slowed the descent of the capsule even more, then she had time to splash down, sink, get out, swim up to the surface and crawl onto shore and the debris that were traveling faster than her capsule were just then seen entering the atmosphere.
3. muted sound could be heard in the vacuum of space on several occasions.
4. some of the reactions to things that happened didn't seem believable, also I don't think anybody with the capability to do so is dumb enough to blow up a satellite. that was probably the farthest stretch in the movie.
Overall a movie with good graphics and serious potential that was failed to be delivered on. Seemed more like a movie made for the sole purpose of showing off how gracefully Sandra Bullock had aged than anything else.
1. You would look pretty normal. Your air would immediately rush out of your lungs faster than you would be able to hold your breath. Your bowels would immediately release. All liquids (blood, saliva, mucus) would immediately boil and become gaseous (ebullism), so because your blood expands into a gaseous state, you would swell a bit, particularly your hands and feet, but not by much. All of this would happen in approx. 15 seconds. You wouldn't be bloated, your eyes wouldn't pop out of your head, your body wouldn't burst apart.
2. There was A LOT of debris. Some behind her, some before her.
Good!! Expose this garbage movie. Interstellar makes Gravity look like kindergarten playtime, but simple minds require simple stimulation, and nothing more or else they shut off.
Toshirozawa exactly. and that is the reason why it is sad to see rating of gravity higher than rating of interstellar. most of people rather just watch without thinking
Imrais Gravity is a movie. A movie made in Hollywood. You can release an incredibly realistic movie, but have a poor script and bad actors, then you have a bad movie. Acting and plot are all that matter.
I liked Interstellar, but I liked Gravity too. Remember it's not always about how scientifically accurate a fantasy movie is but there are several elements to a film that makes it good. Not just the facts. It would be better if they were more accurate. It would be a plus. But most movies we've grown up watching showed inaccuracies. I don't see why that would make a movie like Gravity 'garbage'. It's a great film.
Toshirozawa Interstellar is a piece of garbage. Nothing in that movie is realistic, at least Gravity has to do with space and not fairytale planets that we are never going to explore.
Much respect for Neil. A gentleman and a scholar! Well, more than a scholar!
What if Gravity is just surface tension?
Ric Ultima then had you jumped you would completly disconnect from the world, flying up to space.
Sarper Doğan yeah lol
Ric Ultima
surface tension can hold you only if you're connecting to a surface
Based Dexter the surface of space time
lnopia *WOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH*
Not to convey any sort of opinion or emotion here, but I freaking love Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Visually it was very good, but otherwise it was just an okay movie.
The re-entry scene was the one that made me say "She's floating in the middle of a decelerating capsule? Boy they got that one wrong."
never argue with Neil deGrasse Tyson cuz he rekts u
The Mark of a Great Scientist: He doesn't Attack or Argue, he Clarifies based on Facts. He is also Ready to add I didn't say it Perfect that 1st time. I've learned so much when he talks!
Hugs!
The movie was rubbish. Period.
+RJ Lee How??!! I am genuinely curious as to why u disliked it.. Explain.
Stupid Prodigy I ask you a question - whats there to like?
+RJ Lee that's not how you explain einstein
RJ Lee
The cinematography was absolutely phenomenal. The acting from Bullock and Clooney was revolutionary, and the technology used to make it was outstanding.
Stupid Prodigy
I dont agree.
There is nothing "phenomenal" in having movie thats 80% CGI these days.
Revolutionary acting? Nonsense. It was normal acting for actors like them. There was no revolution. You cant say Oscar winning actors that have been in the business for 20-30 years suddenly become "revolutionary".
The technology was also nothing out of the ordinary. While some practical effects were used, the majority was again - run of the mill CGI.
The story was beyond ridiculous, that in itself made it borderline unwatchable for me. Classic Hollywood, zero originality and the movie as a whole made absolutely no sense.
Ohh the movie...got it
I'd rather watch Tyson talk for 2 hours than watch a single minute of that shitty movie.
streetwalkingnigga32 but it sums up spawning the kraken at you're space station in ksp
Scientists should be appreciated for informing us of the real scientific phenomena even if it spoils the joy of a "deceiving" sci-fi movie a little bit! Just like the truth, say, of evolution, should be preferred over the myths that might even make people feel good.
space doesnt fucking exist
wha??
It doesn't?
Then why can you see it?
***** Uhhh, you can't see space. You can see the absence of light, not space.
What are you smoking?
Startalk radio? THE FUCK?! WHY DID NO ONE EVER TELL ME ABOUT THAT SHOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I have to disagree with Neil (again...) there's no place in the known universe with cero gravity. Gravity is a universal force and the use of zero-g term gives the wrong idea and should be stopped and changed to microgravity which is the real term.
I just want you to know, that when a scientist uses the term "zero-g", it does not mean zero gravity. Zero-g means zero g-force. As in when you're in space, it's considered zero-g because you don't physically feel any g-forces.
cabose105 I know, it's a very common term now a days but still it doesn't mean cero g force, there's no such thing as cero g force. No matter were in the universe you are, the pull from the earth has effect. The true term is microgravity and that is the one that should be used instead of zero-g because it gives the right idea that even if you are floating in the space (or free falling like in the space stations) you still are being affected by gravity, saying zero g to someone gives the idea that there's no gravity and that's is not true. Don't you get it?!
Let me remind that this video was made for the masses. Mostly for American masses and that means you have to keep it simple.
ALPHA DESIGN Creative Studio Of course there is no place in the known universe with zero gravity and neil never claimed there was. Stop putting words in his mouth.
0range0wnage I'm just asking him to not perpetuate ignorance or confusion. I'm just asking him to be a better scientist like Carl Sagan was.
I thought he was gonna talk about actual gravity, not the movie. Was confused, but intrigued for a minute
Gravity was actually a really shitty movie
Not shit just overrated.
Should have watched it in 3D then, and faced your mortality getting hit by lots of debris while Sandra isn't
He didn't mention the airlock doors that open outwards :-D Every single one in the movie from Tiangong to ISS and Soyuz opens outwards. In reality , such doors are ALWAYS constructed to be opened inwards. The reason for this is obvious. To make what happens in Gravity, like the door getting ripped open by accident,..simply impossible ;-)
She landed near land because it could happen, therefore it happened.
I agree with the thesis that movies ought to be more realistic, which can be done without sacrificing spectacle. What if Sandra had landed in an escape pod in the middle of the ocean, and floated? Who would find her? How?
SCIENTIFIC QUESTION: At what point in water's mass (think about filling up a cup, a bathtub, a pool, a lake, an ocean) does gravity change its physical effects on water allowing water to no longer need a container to hold its level? More simply put, at what point does water start curving AROUND something instead of needing to be contained IN something?
The part that I didn't like was the fact that the debris kept intercepting the protagonist when in reality, they usually never intersect again. Another was when Kowalski kept on burning extra RCS when he didn't need to and ended up having to sacrifice himself. Then there was the fact that one explosion caused the destruction 3 major space stations with in less than 2 hours.
It's really scary to know that even someone as respected and brilliant as Neil deGrasse Tyson had to make sure people knew he enjoyed a movie before they'd tolerate him criticizing its use of science. He's an astrophysicist talking about the scientific validity of a sci-fi movie for fun, so why should it matter to anyone whether he enjoyed the movie or not?