You can't separate the sci-fi from the story which is why I would call it unsettling rather than creepy. The reason why I you and just about everyone found what happened unsettling is because none of us can honestly say we wouldn't do the same thing if we were in the same situation. Anyone claiming they wouldn't do what he did or for that matter what she did are lying, maybe they're lying to themselves, but they're lying.Passengers explored aspects of human nature and human weakness that are rarely seen in stories and for that I think it was a great movie.
@THX 1138 I was a bit surprised she lost it so completely after falling for him, I was actually hoping they'd avoid that little Romantic Movie cliche and just have her accept it as she's supposedly an intelligent woman and knows how long he was alone! Another thing that annoyed me was the acting {or maybe it was the direction} by Michael Sheen as he "let slip" with almost inordinate glee, the truth - It just didn't feel right for an android. Of course, the getting back together at the end was also handled really really badly along with the obvious and massively cliched race against time, fake death and all in the final act - To be fair the first two thirds of this movie was good, it's just the final act that let it down and ended up going nowhere good.
in fact water molecules stick together because of surface tension. In the case of chris crying in space, surface tension would keep those tears stuck to his cheeks... so that one they got it right.. not like Sandra Bullock on Gravity.
Andres Abad yes, it would have stuck to his face... you don't understand what i mean: it didn't stick. it rolled down his cheak as if he was on earth. in space nothing would pull the tear "down" towards the legs.
the moment the movie started and the asteroid field showed up i was like BULLSHIT! but i let all those technical details slide. the point of this movie wasn't to make a realistic sci fi movie. the giant luxury noah's ark in the trailer should have made this pretty clear. the main focus was the human component. and i really liked the first half of the movie when chris pratt has to deal with being alone. he's in near isolation, aside from the android and has no human interaction. this would drive people insane. michale stevens from vsauce did a video about isolation where he locked himself away in a room for 3 days with nothing to do and no one to talk to. by the end of the first day he had lost all sense of time and his circadian rhythm was way off, and in two days he started to lose some basic cognition. it's pretty interesting. and chris pratt's character fights through this for a year, trying to resist the urge to wake someone else while fighting off severe depression and possibly dementia. keep in mind this character is not an austronaut. he's not trained to be in isolation for long. he's just a regular technician. and although he had plenty of things to distract himself with, without someone else to share it with, it's just becomes repetitive and boring. i loved that aspect of the movie. experiencing extreme isolation is something we don't often get to experience and i think they made a fairly decent job portraying that.
This comment is so true. The technical problems definitely did not make sense, such as having no way to wake the crew, but the human story was what made the movie interesting to me. Isolation for a year, waking someone else up, then they find out after a year, all of that was what the movie was about. The interstellar spaceship was just a logical setting for such extreme isolation and drama.
If you watched that video you would have also seen the study NASA did where a woman was in isolation with books/entertainment for a long long time. She survived intact.
If you want a good story about someone waking up early in a damaged STL colony spacecraft light years from its destination, read _Hull Zero Three_ by Greg Bear. It's really imaginative, has some good philosophical themes and importantly: it's very hard sci-fi. There's only one thing that's soft sci-fi, and it barely even features, so you can pretty much ignore it. Hell, it even gets centrifugal gravity right, unlike this movie. The hull's rotation speeds up and slows down, going between gravity and microgravity when that happens.
actually, if the ship has a counterweight rotating the other way, it can speed up and slow down the rotation with standard electromotors, like gyrosopes do. Without, it would require firing thrusters. So the depiction in Passengers could be quite accurate.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 If think you misunderstand why the film is inaccurate. _Passengers_ shows the ship stop spinning because the power fails. This doesn't make sense - a spinning structure requires energy to _stop_ spinning. There's no air resistance to slow it down or anything. The movie treats a centrifugal habitat as if it were a magic sci-fi articial gravity technology like you'd get on Star Trek, because the writers don't understand the difference.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 The centrifuge continuing to spin is failsafe. A brake that stops the centrifuge when the power fails is _fail-deadly._ In zero-G, all unsecured objects (including that pool of water) will float, creating unneccesary hazards. Injuries would be harder to treat as blood doesn't flow away from a wound, it just bubbles up around it - or worse, you could get a geyser of blood that would spread droplets all over the habitat. It also makes it harder for crew to navigate the spacecraft and respond to emergencies. So while your idea is feasible engineering-wise, I see very little reason to implement it. The only reason I can imagine to perform a spin-down is if doing so would prevent some mechanical failure that would destroy the spacecraft, but that's a highly unlikely situation and probably not something that a power failure would cause.
Even if the gravity is generated somehow, rather than being the result of the ship spinning, a huge volume of water isn't going to surge out of the pool because the gravity has failed. Its natural tendency is to stay where it is.
@Alvin Walters This is "Science vs Cinema" where topics are discussed on reality vs fiction, feasibility vs impossible. Everyone in this thread already knows this movie is science fiction.
This is one of those sad situations in cinema, where the movie was bad, and it didn't need to be. Some minor (very minor) tweaks and this would have actually been a great movie.
I loved the movie. I enjoyed that they used a realistic propulsion system Nuclear (not the fictional Warp core). I enjoyed they didn't use gravity plates which no one has any idea how to create but used centrifugal force instead. The water scene was realistic in how the water behaved without gravity. If you watch NASA TV as I do you will see the same action with water on the ISS. The acting was top notch. Especially, how she reacted to finding out that she was woken up early. Special effects were great. The best film in 2016!
sure but then they forget that tears are also water and instead and streaming down your face they'd just huddle up in a ball around your eye lol also the warp drive may not be as fiction as you make out to be. it's called the alcubiere drive in the real world and is currently being studied for its potential and if it's physically possible at all. but hasn't been ruled out just yet.
The spin can continue even if the power of this spaceship shuts down. It is unreasonable to stop spinning of this ship sharply. So the gravity loss is totally large ERROR.
The ship was malfunctioning. You can assume a few different reasons why the rotation stopped. Such as the computer mistakenly stopped it or if you look at the ship closely it actually had 2 counter rotating rings. I assume these rotating sections ride on some sort of magnetic bearing so as to be near frictionless. If the bearing lost power the two section inertia would cancel each other out stopping the rotation.
The tear scene was very accurate compared to the movie Gravity. His tears stayed stuck to his face. It left his eyes and stuck to his cheek since some centrifugal forces still existed (change in direction). Space.com writes an interesting article on the movie. Listed below. Yes it's not perfect... it's a movie! Just like The Martian wasn't perfect (force of dust storm). Sci-Fi Gets Science Right: 'Passengers' Nails the Physicswww.space.com/35104-passengers-scifi-movie-nails-space-physics.html The warp drive is a far fetched idea since the amount of power to warp the fabric of space would take the power of a black hole. NASA comments on it's feasibility. (more of a dream than likely). www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warp.html
It's not a bad movie. It's just.... you know, a normal movie, nothing special. It's just not as good as it was promised to be. The only bad thing about this movie is just a little bit of miscast.
I definitely loved this movie. Although as you explain, it really was far fetched. The sci-fi portion is what I call "Entertainment Value" to be polite. Regardless I love the plot point of what would you do if you were alone like that. It raises so many psychology and existential questions.
Sorry but doesn't the speed of a star relative to the trajectory of the spaceship enable a slingshot manoever? AFAIK stars are NOT fixed in the universe.
Seveneye the fastest stars relative to local neighbors move at about 3% the speed of light, and need to be orbiting a black hole closely. At relativistic speeds and interstellar distances, a slingshot maneuver would "work" but make an insignificant difference because of the already relativistic speeds (~0.5c for the ship.) as you get up to those speeds, energy added yields less speed and instead begins to contribute to relativistic mass, so a relativistic slingshot maneuver would also be more inefficient than one at speeds well explained with classical orbital mechanics
milesjsandifer Well, sounds good, wish I knew enough to agree with you. I'm gonna do some research now cause everything you said sounded really interesting. I knew the enterprise could've never saved the whales.
The problem is not necessarily whether or not the stars are fixed in space, it's the forces at play you need to reconcile. You'd have to take into consideration the mass of the star (to find its gravitational pull), the relative vector of the star in relation to the ship, the ships mass, the ships vector in relation to the star and the proximity of the two objects. Granted, the star is going to have a much higher mass, and therefore a very large gravitational pull, but at 50% the speed of light, which is 671 million miles an hour, you'd only be under the effects of that gravitational pull for minutes at most.
What about the plasma from the fusion core venting in to space and him standing there with his arm out? Or with a door to (partially) shield himself? The whole reason fusion reactors need a magnetic field to keep the plasma in check is because it burn through pretty much anything it touches extremely fast. So his space suit is able to resist plasma but the ship isn't? Doesn't make sense...
Well in reality plasma in a fusion reactor is not qite as dangerous as people make it out to be. It is incredibly hot, yes, but there is also very litle of it. The main reason we need the magnetic containment is not because without it the plasma would burn the entire reactor building but because it would melt off the inner layer of the wall which would rapidly contaminate and cool down the plasma. With a thin layor of high temperature resistant metal you could actually shield yourself. I do however doubt a space suit could withstand the heat.
The plasma of a fusion reactor actually is quite vulnerable. Change one of a hundred variables by a smidge and it will cool down real quick. But one must remember that a fusion reactor works with very very little gas, the inside has an almost perfect vacuum. Wendelstein 7-X, the currently biggest nuclear fusion experimental facility has a plasma mass of only 5 to 30 milligrams spread over the volume of 30 cubic meters. There is just nothing there to spectacularly go anywhere.
A major plot element is that some embedded computer in the reactor control system failed, and the other computers across the ship needed to compensate. What? Really, you're going to use the CPU of some wirelessly connected roving robot for containment of the fusion process? And then those devices all fail. Because that's what happens when your CPU runs at 100% yet it can't complete its tasks in time. Your laptop explodes. Having said all that, I enjoyed the movie. Great visuals, original premise, quite passable dialogue and acting, funny. I noticed all the problems but it didn't yank me out of my suspension of disbelief. I just let myself be carried along for the ride.
@Artificial gravity - actually, once the ship started spinning, it will practically never stop. There is virtually no friction in space to stop it, so the only way to wear off the inertia is via gravitational wave radiation, and with relatively small mass of the ship and slow rotation speed it would most probably take longer then the age of universe. So - basically, they have free gravity forever. Yay! The only way to stop the ship from spinning is to use engines (not the main ones, they should have some just for rotation). And that requires energy. As much energy as it took to get the gravity running to be exact.
After seeing this review and reading the comments I conclude that you all hoped for the movie to be boring, because it was if everything had to be perfectly realistic. How else could they write a thrilling story like that. I'm also a science enthusiast but this is a science fiction movie not a science fact movie. Common guys, am I the only one who enjoyed this movie?
I liked the movie. Its like most movies. I think from his perspective and many others movies like this insults the intelligence of the everyday person.
I enjoyed it, but I still nitpicked many of the plot points. As far as it being boring if there was more realism, that's not exactly true. The stacking of failures was a nice touch, and to incorporate that with the gravity failure, THAT would be terrifying. If you swimmed long enough for the ship to lose momentum, things would get very interesting. The depiction of the way the water would react was pretty close too, but I don't recall if the bubbles of air she had exhausted had clung to her (btw, neat prevention of such incidents would be using perfluorocarbon as the "water" instead of...water, it's also known as LiquiVent).
Loved this movie. Yes it was contrived. All movies are. The Martian; we have got a human Mars program but we only have one booster built that can send a payload to Mars. Oh and then it blows up and secretly the Chinese also have exactly one booster that can do the trick. An affordable human Mars program is going to mass produce reusable boosters. But I loved the Martian for trying. Passengers tries too. A trip to another star taking over a hundred years; So much more realistic than Star Wars or even Star Trek. A belief in systems being infallible; Titanic anyone? Of course he should know that the message should take years to go round trip to Earth.; sure unless he watched to much Star Trek and assumed that if the system was offering to send it there was some kind of subspace magic tech involved. The gravity turning off being related to the spin of the ship; I don't think so. This is taking place at least thousands of years in the future, I assume gravity failure means artificial gravity as in technology so far advanced that it is indistinguishable from magic. Same with the ability to get a cruise ship to half c. But I love the fact that despite magic tech, they still take over a hundred years to travel to a nearby star. It opens the mind to the idea that even with magic tech space is huge and won't provide weekly encounters with aliens as in Star Trek. For me, the movie was really about the psychological disconnect between space and how big it is and how small and limited we are. The contrast between being on a luxury cruise ship and at the same time being cast away alone for your whole life because space is too big and our lives are too short is a contrast that puts the size of the universe into a human perspective.
This movie would have been more interesting if Jim woke a girl up. Have his fun with her, then *killed her* and woke up another one. *Psycho in space.*
No one is gonna talk about that ending? The crew wakes up and all the colonization plant life resources are used for a pretty surprise? Not to mention those same plants and trees wreaking havoc on the internal structures of the ship, since the couple would've died years earlier and wouldn't have controlled it.
What I gathered from the movie is that those flight were pretty routine by the time events of the movie happen. They do not fly there to setup a fresh colony.
This movie is like titanic for the people who want relationship drama AND have been clobbered in the head so hard they forgot what good writing was or how science worked.
Another issue I had was time dilation. No way... If the ship travels with half the speed of light, time dilation should be great enough to seriously shift the "experienced" time of the passangers in relation to the "experienced time" on earth, right? How, for heavens sake, can a company like "Homestead" work in a world like that? Apparently they have set up the colonies before sending people there... That's a tremendous undertaking that takes many hundreds of years before even the first settler climbs into a spaceship. I tried to wrap my head around the logistical effort, but just couldn't do it.
The problem with this movie is that people went into it thinking it's going to be something like Interstellar or The Martian. It's not. It was never intended to be. It was meant to be a sci-fi drama. They weren't focusing on the science. They were focused on the relationship. Anyone, reviewers included, who either ignored or didn't realize that weren't paying attention.
I think that's a super valid point, but something that I always come back to is that it wouldn't change the human element of the story if the science was done right. It wouldn't even be that much harder to write. What is the motivation for making bad explanations when you could make good explanations?
@@johnmorrell3187 I don't think they cared about how much effort it would have taken to make it scientifically accurate. I think they just wanted a romance/Stockholm genera movie set in space, and they were going to do it regardless of scientific accuracy.
Then there is the whole "OMG, fusion reactor losing containment or whatever, it's gonna blow!" Fusion reactors (AFAIK) need containment (magnetic fields) to be able to run. No containment, reactor just shuts down. No problem.
my problem with the messaging "app" is that why it was there in the first place? they were supposed to wake up 120 years later, why would anyone want to send a message back from the destination as it'd take 240 years to get a response :) aside from the inaccuracies, i loved the movie as it was anyway. the visuals were just WOW
All things said here are sadly true, but i nonetheless enjoyed the movie very much. It has a narrative that you'll never see in another movie. Hollywood is offending our intelligence practically in every blockbuster movie on the most basic facts of life. We need a youtube channel called Common Sense Vs Cinema. This movie comes along and bends the laws of physics, i agree, but it's nonetheless a nice story about human life.
Home alone was also a movie full of non-sense, however it was very enjoyable for adults also. If there ever was a kid saying "That is not possible! What bullshit" that would be a smart kid. But a kid that missed something magical nonetheless.
This is why a friend of mine recommended this film to me; even though from a pure sci-fi perspective the film is trash, but I could see why he liked it. Although I appreciate that viewpoint, it's still a bad film.
Also, in the pool scene, she drowns in the water as if she couldn't move in there because no gravity. YOU CAN PERFECTLY SWIM IN A BIG MASS OF WATER, even in vacuum. But she was just "stuck" there as if it was air, no matter how hard she tried.
They also forgot that they're moving at 50% the speed of light, so... 149896.229 km/s And 55 years, the time it would take for the message to go and come back, would be a lot less for him if we're talking about earth time, and a lot more for earth and for the message outside the spaceship if we're talking about spaceship time. 55 years for him would be 63.5085297 years on earth, assuming the computer is smart enough to actually tell him how long he'll actually have to wait. But they just completely forgot time dilation.
I think the silliest thing is how the whole ship is operational despite the fact that everyone is supposed to be asleep - the lights are one, the classes are running, there's an announcement when they slingshot around the star, etc.
If the spin is generated by counterspinning a counterweight, the ship could stand still very fast if the failsafe is to stop spinning, in which case failsafe brakes would be applied and the spinning would be stopped in notime.
I can forgive the asteroid thing because encountering interstellar debris is a huge problem for interstellar travel concepts. At half light speed, something that’d make a hole that big would probably be microscopic. At the interstellar average, you’d encounter an object with the same energy as a bullet roughly every second.
Its a movie not a science documentary so if it entertained you before this review it did its job but if you say you don't like the movie after this review, then that's not fair.
Debby Scott Wow! so you are predicting the future? You mean to say that there are no planets that can support human life in universe and that a company will not try not to take advantage of a planet that is habitable?? Its a story set in future, you cant be 100% sure if you will wake up the next morning and you argue logic?? Hmmmm.. ok...
Hiren Patel READ my comment first and UNDERSTAND that I disliked the movie because of its unrealistic portrayal of any sort of space travel. But since you talk about future, go and watch the movie and then study the basics of interplanetary journey. Then compare them. While we have pretty believable futuristic sci fi movies like The Martian, Gatacca or Contact, this movie is a pile of crap in front of them.
You are forgetting the most eye rolling one: - after conquering interstellar travel, They still have door failures where they need a person to hold the door open. - And: Oh the AutoDoc can put you in hibernation! But only 1 AutoDoc! There is no way we can put one of us to sleep first, and move that person to an empty sleep pod, then put the 2nd person to sleep in the AutoDoc... - And why couldn't the ship AI re-purpose one of those sushi making Robots to replace the damaged core computer blades? All it seemed to involve is to pull the damaged blade out, and slide a backup blade in...
Anyone else notice how wrong the time was when Jim tried to send back a message. They were 30 years into their journey and were apparently 19light years from earth, this means they flew 19 light years in 30 years. Even without acceleration this would mean they traveled around 2/3 the speed of light average. We know they were going 1/2 the speed of light so the only way the message can take 19 years is if they launch it and earth call centres cease to exist for 4 years minimum
This movie is still a favorite of mine. I love the chemistry between Jen & Chris. However, when I take myself out of the film and look at it objectively, I agree with some of what he says here. Here are my peevs: - "For two unlucky people, we sure are pretty lucky." (Or something to that effect.) Aurora Lane is immediately established as a smart person, yet it doesn't dawn on her that her awakening was no accident until Arthur tells her. The fact that she never even considered the possibility isn't a credit to her intelligence. Then again, it likely wouldn't have occurred to her because doing such a thing is unconscionable. Still, a logical person would have considered the possibility. - The asteroid collision. I forget what year or century the film takes place, but come on. We have orbital telescopes that can see objects many, MANY billions of light years into deep space! They couldn't put some kind of array on the front of the ship that could detect, or at least observe, solid objects soon enough to avoid a collision? And the asteroid they hit was huge! That was a little hard to believe or accept. - Arcturus. I'm sure there are many other red giant stars they could have showcased. Given their speed and elapsed time, they were nowhere near that particular star. Nevertheless, I love the movie, mostly because of the actors' performances and the amount of introspection it causes. Also, Jen did that zero-gravity water stunt, herself, in a tank! BOSS!!
I loved this film. But I have to agree with everything here. My problem was - which interestingly doesn`t get to mention in this clip - that if you go with such high speed you don`t see the surrounding universe as they did because of the Doppler-effect.
I totally agree that the science, especially in the last third, doesn't make sense. But the thing is for the most part this really isn't a sci-fi movie. It's not basing a lot of entertainment value on the cool sci-fi ideas; it's just using this space ship as a stage for a romance to play out. So yes, when the giant holes punched through the ship somehow cause the cleaning robots to fail, or when they need to use a big hammer to vent the fusion reactor for some reason, it doesn't make much sense and the last third is pretty week. But the majority of the movie doesn't rely on the science at all; it relies on the emotional impact of being alone for decades, and the guilt of bringing someone else onto the 'deserted island', and the tension that causes.
People that believe they are critics can't do that. There's a reason its called science FICTION. I wonder what part of science fiction he is having trouble grasping .....................................
Agree about the major slips but there were some things they did put into place well. The spinning ship that looks like three cruise ships tied together actually has a diameter large enough for gravity and water would form a ball even though there is no way it gravity could stop like that. What I found more disappointing is that she can't get out of the ball. You can get to the surface of the water with no problem. You can basically swim into the air... love the film by the way
ok so there are many topics and some are ok but there are 4 I massively disagree: 1) The film makes clear that they can only make the procedure to put someone to sleep on Earth. The ship can't make it. 2) They didn't have access to the diagnostics room until Gus wakes up and at that time the diagnostics equipment was not working. 3) It makes total sense to have a lock room for the crew and bridge in a ship with passengers. You want to protect against crazy people or revolt trying to take over. 4) Robots are made for a specific task and of course you can't ask a bartender about ship engineering.
This is amazing movie, of course there are some things which are not ideally scientific, but after 100 years we could build real starship and trust me, there will some much technology we even cant imagine today... Love the Movie
There's this funny passage in one of Douglas Adams books where a huge spaceship full of people gets hit and the crew has no memory of their mission. Reminds me of it
Did people actually expect EITHER the story OR the science to be any good in this movie? Just look at who is starring in it (America's son Chris Pratt and "I'm too good to have to wear makeup for a movie even though I'm a paid actress" Jennifer Lawrence). And it's a romance movie (I think?), which means not even emotions are going to be real. Way to go, Hollywood.
Most of your points seem reasonable, but I thought it was pretty clear that there was a diagnostic system that would have told them what the problem was, but a) it was on the bridge which wasn't accessible, and b) it malfunctioned before they were able to gain access to the bridge.
Partly correct; there is still an outward momentum due to centrifugal forces, so the motion of the water would be a vector of the two forces. But in the film it just rises upward, i.e. no simulated gravity ergo it must rise. That's complete nonsense.
Slingshot around a star is so a thing. It is just like slingshot around the Jupiter. Instead of travel in the solar system it is travelling in a Galaxy with stars circulating the center of the Galaxy. You don't slingshot around the moon of Jupiter when you are trying to reach Mars. Besides, the crew who woke up mentioned the ship is merely traveling at 50% light speed, which means the ship merely 1.155 times the mass of its rest mass, which is not so hard to overcome.
Your right of course but I still really liked the movie. I dont really think about the plausibility of it all until maybe after as long as I get into it..
You'd be surprised how many people have no frikkin clue what the speed of light is, let alone the speed of sound. And even less people know the difference between light and sound.
I think that the saddest thing about the movie is that in the future life expectancy is still the same, somehow humans can travel at half the speed of light but no one figured out how to make people live longer =/
The science behind this movie wasn't that bad, you're being too harsh. What's really questionable is the economic logic behind the whole thing. How is this all being paid for? The movie explains that the passengers have to pay a fee, and contribute 20% of their income in taxes once they get to Homestead 2. Sounds alright as a travel plan for a trip between continents on Earth, but how does this work when the tax paying passengers are light years from company headquarters on back Earth? Imagine being a potential investor listening to the company's business plan. They build this hugely expensive ship, passengers pay a fee, but not enough to cover the full cost of the ship, it spends 120 years in space. Once they arrive they start sending money back to HQ, and since they can only communicate at light speed, the money takes another 120 years to start arriving. So you basically won't be seeing your original investment pay back itself for at least 240 years. Dumb Maybe the stock market is really stupid in the future.
Dude, they paid for they ticket before they got boarded on the ship. It's like buying a real lofe ticket, I mean you pay, and then you get the ticket, the same way it was in the movie.
@@marktakac8337 That's not how I remember it being explained in the movie. The full cost of the journey wasn't covered by the ticket price, rather the taxes they pay on arrival. Still fun to think about.
Well, it was thought that the Titanic was unsinkable, stands to reason there's a little hubris involved with the design of the Avalon and the hibernation pods on the part of the Homestead Corp. At the very least they should've had the engineering and bridge crew on a rotation and had the means to re-hibernate people aboard ship (and more than ONE autodoc), with so many months or years keeping the ship running right and flying straight, so many months or years being a human popsicle and staving off the aging process.
Agree with criticism regard to Arcturus slingshot. However here one thing regard to Avalon journey to Homestead at 50% speed of light who takes 120 years. This mean Homestead is approx: 60 light-year from Earth. So when Jim wake up 30 years into the journey. Avalon has only finish with 1/4 of its journey to Homestead.. Meantime Earth discovers same time warp speed technology and can make spaceship f.e. can go 10 times faster then speed of light. So by default this warp speeding ship could reach Avalon within 5 years and rescues Jim and Aurora.
Hi Andy! Actually the gravity would just give out like that. because the gravity generated in such a way depends on circular acceleration. and the moment the ship loses circular acceleration, the shit might still be spinning, but the centripetal force is gone.
This can't be true. Otherwise ships, in order to keep a stable artificial gravity, would need to ramp up their rotational velocity all the time. The accelaration of a constantly spinning object is changed at every point in time via direction. So the angular velocity can stay the same. No air resistance, so the only friction to overcome are the gears and junctions sliding. Over a long journey they will need to compensate only that. The engines stopping means only a very slow decline in angular velocity.
When you're in zero-g, and need to pull someone towards you with a tether, you should give one good pull, and then wait from them to arrive. If you keep pulling, they'll hit you at speed. Making this mistake with a large object can kill you.
1: If you have very good robotics and access to the plentiful resources of the asteroid belt its really easy to build giant structures in space making your spaceship much bigger than it needs to be and luxurious. It does not have large fuel tanks so presumably the force thfied also work as a Bussard Ramscoop gathering fusion fuel as they go. 2: The ship would have a procedure to stop spinning in case there was a structural fault in the beams, so the ship does not tear itself apart. So it is a feature accidentally being turned on rather than off. 3: Tru cop Stars do have angular momentum relative to each other but nothing that would be worth it when you are already going so fast. The writer should of at least chosen a star the right distance away probably forgot to divide by two. 4:You have to show something for the film and the film does show the shield breaking it down into a much smaller object before it hits the hull probably dust or grit sized. The long range sensors must of already been faulty that day. 5: Apparently its proprietary tech and they don't want the secret sauce getting out. 6:Any length of time dealing with technology does not make oversights like these surprising. We already have chatbots today. 7:Why do you need a locked door when there is no one to lock out that is odd. 8:He just woke up he is confused does not know what time it is, and allot of the audience will need reminding about the timescales. 9: All movies have plot holes I consider this one better than most sci fi films, I liked it.
2: Until you consider that rapid stop of millions of tonnes of steel from rotating would generate even more stress in the structure than failed beam. Basically you'd be fucked either way.
one more point on the Tech problem. Wouldn't they already have a plan in place for a technical issue planned out before the ship launches, say engineers who would come out of staysis to fix things instead of the freaking passengers.
I didn't understand the slingshotting around the star, I'm a huge space nerd. Stars rotate, so slowing down by going against the stars rotation makes sense to me, just like with planets. Can someone please go into more detail for me?
I agree with the analysis overall and I enjoyed watching it. I also think, as you do, that the producers didn't get the science right. The post production people also didn't do their job. Over the ending credits, they should have played The Fixx's "Secret Separation." It would have been the most perfect song for this movie. The song even has a the perfect line, "passengers in time" as if it was written in 1986 for 2016. If you turn the volume off at the end and play Secret Separation, it fits perfectly.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the tiny hole sucking them into the room and how they had to save themselves by covering it with the Ipad thing and then some sort of fire foam. The force of the air pushing them into the room probably would lift them off their feet going out such a tiny hole. It's just 1 atmosphere. They use that trope in movies too much. The worst case was in Aliens 4 where Ripley makes a tiny hole in a window with her hybrid acid blood and it sucks an entire creature out to space.
Although I liked the movie from a storytelling point of view, the scientific inaccuracies drove me nuts. I would also give it a negative for the misrepresentation of the plot in the trailer: "This wasn't an accident." - Yes, it pretty much was. At no point in the movie did the story even hint that something was planned to wake Jim Preston up. "There's something they didn't tell us." - Again, hinting at the idea of some conspiracy. "There's a reason we woke up early." - This again provokes the idea that by "reason" he means someone meant for it, not the "reason" being the unexpected collision with a rock.
Final Grade: D-, “it's not a horrible movie, and that's the best thing I can say for it science wise.” The “They put their name on the exam” of sci-fi movies, lol
Actually unmanned probes did go around the sun to go to the outer planets or the inner planets in the past and will do so in future explorations. Including manned one to save fuel. Need to watch some documentaries that many NASA filmed inside rockets fuel tank to see how liquid reacts when the engine shut down in space, then starts up, including Space X videos too.
It's like the movie "Armageddon". They made such a big deal about the surface low gravity of the comet that the vehicle AND the space suits all had thrusters that kept you in contact with the ground. It was a core issue at several points in the plot line. But inside the shuttles, when no one was wearing any suits with thrusters to keep them in place, they have no problem running around and everything responding like it was in normal gravity and not the microgravity of the comet. WTF? I'll gladly suspend disbelief for a movie. I do it all the time. But why the fuck point it out, then ignore it, then point it out again? I felt insulted. Like they thought I was too stupid to notice such an blatant incongruity.
I think the idea that an engineer & mechanic being the one to wake up is too coincidental to be real is like saying Ken Mattingly staying behind on Apollo 13 and ends up helping save the lives of the crew is too coincidental to be real & be believed.
I remember how the girl from the movie said that she wanted to be on the new planet only for a year and then go back.How was she going to hibernate again if there is no lab that can put her back in to hibernation again? Thew were going to build one on the new planet or what ?
Scientists believe they know so much more than they really do. There is a fair amount (relatively speaking) that we do understand but so many theories are crushed every day in the world of science with new discoveries. In case of this movie, I never looked at it this movie as to how accurate is the science like you can do with The Martian for example. You really have to just sit back and enjoy the the art of story telling. Some will hate it. It really depends on what attitude or expectation you go in with. Sometimes you just have to go in with none. Could I find fault in it this movie, sure. But, I found a lot to love. The scenery and vistas of space are incredible. Some of the best I have seen. If you are trying to hold this and many other similar type movies to the realtivily small amount we know or think we know about this vast universe, you will always be diappointed.
I agree. Plus this guy is clearly not an engineer, otherwise he would have known that any kind of interstellar vessel *needs* to be *huge*. Given that more than 90% of the ship's mass is going to be fuel anyway, there no reason not to add another few thousand tons of mass for some luxury. Doesn't make a big difference (as opposed to our current spacecraft that can't even get past the moon). I was especially annoyed by his smug attitude towards the ship's computers. As a software engineer who works in an A.I. related field, I felt delighted by the film's portrayal of this particular aspect because that's *exactly* how real A.I. works. The ship's main computer's job was to fly the damn thing, not to interact verbally(!!!) with random passengers. For the same reason the in-flight entertainment system on a modern passenger jet is disconnected from the flight controls, the computers the main character interacted with were disconnected from the ship's main computers. That's simple common sense and logic that the guy simply overlooked. While watching the film I was briefly disturbed by the fact that the main computer didn't wake some of the crew members when it encountered problems, but then it struck me: waking up a crew member basically ruins their life since the film's rules imply they can't be sent back to hyper-sleep. And even that particular aspect isn't that far-fetched either. If it really takes a complex medical procedure to send someone into hyper-sleep, why would you even have spare sleeping chambers? Again - same reason hospitals don't just have a "spare" MRI machine - this stuff is expensive and basically never fails while in operation. Sorry for the long rant, but I really hate when people start criticising aspects of fictional work that don't even fall into their particular area of expertise. It would have been more honest of him to simply say he just didn't like the film.
didn't even mention the fact that the spinning wheels of the ship *aren't even necessary* for "gravity".. assuming the ship is under constant acceleration to the halfway point then doing a "turn & burn" maneuver to decelerate to the destination. (otherwise why would the fusion propulsion system be running the whole time?) then the force of that constant acceleration would provide the feel of gravity. With the spinning hubs, you're just adding 2 different vectors of force.. for.. some reason?
one thing I didn't understand is the point in waking up 3 months early, too much risk for these passengers to wage a war against each due to spacephobia
6:41 This is incidentally my biggest problem with the last third of Rogue One, nothing they have to do is established beforehand, so there is no real tension.
why no mention about the fusion reactor and how chris patt turns red fumes into blue by opening an exhaust door with a piece of door as radiation shield and thus saving the ship.
Though we liked the movie (enough to rent), we picked up on most everything you did. One thing that also stood out (that you didn't mention) was that there was only ONE Med-Table for 5000+ people on the ship. Talk about optimistic engineering. AND of course, in all their time on the ship, the ship tech support never told them they could use it to hibernate, he had to find that little detail in a manual about the table. (sheeeesh) These types of writing conceits are so cliche. They could have had multiple Med-tables with the 'gotcha' that in order to hibernate it requires manual activation outside the pod. Alternative ending could have been (based on multiple Med-Tables) he puts her in a coma, they cry, she goes to sleep. She is revived by Andy Garcia, she shakes off her hibernation, camera pulls back to find Pratt had rigged the bartender to manually operated a second Med-table...he's there with her. They embrace looking at the planet as they arrive. "Maybe we'll just start a family here..." fade out. Also - where did the birds come from in that end shot? I guess they were bringing animals to the new planet...so were the birds in hibernation? And...'adam and eve' never had children I guess. Between Pratt and Lawrence and the design work, the film is visually very pleasing, you just have to not think about the science.
I felt like the Artificial Intelligences on the ship seemed too stupid compared to the rest of the technologies shown. By the time humans can travel at half the speed of light, induce an age-suspending coma, and colonize another planet we should have AI that's closer to Samantha in "Her" than to Siri.
A smallish rock consisting of heavy elements, reduced to even smaller pieces by the ship's "plasma/force/magnetic/whatever" shield could penetrate it like that, like a railgun slug in The Expanse. I don't think they would need any crew available at all times, granted the computer is smart enough to wake them up when really needed. Which would mean they need to have some means to re-hibernate them. So yeah, that seems like a device plot. Clearly the med bay thing can do that so it shouldn't be too difficult to have more of that.
I thought it was a great movie, sure there were some inaccuracies but, what movie doesn't? I also don't get why you're so cynical about a movie that takes place god knows how many years in the future... I'm assuming your review is based on you knowing what humans will or will not be capable of in the future? In that case, you should you should be helping the government predict future tragedies not making shitty RUclips reviews. Also, you question why the ships ai doesn't know anything about one passenger waking up, its repeated several times throughout the movie that the pods never fail so why would the creators of the ai teach it how to address a problem that doesn't exist in their minds? As for the replacement parts, do you think this is the only fucking ship going to homestead ll? Maybe that in regular trips, 5000 people walking around the ship for four months wouldn't break something and maybe other ships need the parts? Also, it's not uncommon in science fiction that communication between distant stars is made possible....If i were a passenger on an interplanetary star liner insure as fuck would think so too. The guy is a fucking mechanic, not a physicist...
Thanks for the video. While your assertions are certainly valid, your ire is misplaced. The film is a monument to Murphy's Law - Whatever can go wrong, it will...usually at the worst time. It's also a testament that no matter how advanced we become, technologies falter when things go off the rails.
A coincidence, of asteroid streams, might be more plausible against tech support, plus dialog-'What kind of grades did you get in college math... B, mostly... So if a stream of asteroids is 1% probable you route around it, What's the probability of three streams on three axes. Micro. Insurance doesn't pay on low-probability "Acts Of God," High school.'
A disturbing love story wrapped into a sci\fi wrapper. Without the sci\fi the love story would likely be rejected as creepy.
even with sci-fi its creepy.
You can't separate the sci-fi from the story which is why I would call it unsettling rather than creepy. The reason why I you and just about everyone found what happened unsettling is because none of us can honestly say we wouldn't do the same thing if we were in the same situation. Anyone claiming they wouldn't do what he did or for that matter what she did are lying, maybe they're lying to themselves, but they're lying.Passengers explored aspects of human nature and human weakness that are rarely seen in stories and for that I think it was a great movie.
Your backslashes (\) hurt my eyes. Windows person??
@THX 1138 I was a bit surprised she lost it so completely after falling for him, I was actually hoping they'd avoid that little Romantic Movie cliche and just have her accept it as she's supposedly an intelligent woman and knows how long he was alone!
Another thing that annoyed me was the acting {or maybe it was the direction} by Michael Sheen as he "let slip" with almost inordinate glee, the truth - It just didn't feel right for an android.
Of course, the getting back together at the end was also handled really really badly along with the obvious and massively cliched race against time, fake death and all in the final act - To be fair the first two thirds of this movie was good, it's just the final act that let it down and ended up going nowhere good.
the one thing that really bugged me was the tear on chris pratts face while he was floating in outer space. that thing just dropped like on earth...
in fact water molecules stick together because of surface tension. In the case of chris crying in space, surface tension would keep those tears stuck to his cheeks... so that one they got it right.. not like Sandra Bullock on Gravity.
Andres Abad yes, it would have stuck to his face... you don't understand what i mean:
it didn't stick. it rolled down his cheak as if he was on earth. in space nothing would pull the tear "down" towards the legs.
Chribit Wouldn't it just well up in his eyes? It wouldn't even reach the cheek.
exactly. that's what bugged me.
www*youtube*com/watch?v=P36xhtpw0Lg
* -> .
the moment the movie started and the asteroid field showed up i was like BULLSHIT! but i let all those technical details slide. the point of this movie wasn't to make a realistic sci fi movie. the giant luxury noah's ark in the trailer should have made this pretty clear. the main focus was the human component. and i really liked the first half of the movie when chris pratt has to deal with being alone. he's in near isolation, aside from the android and has no human interaction. this would drive people insane. michale stevens from vsauce did a video about isolation where he locked himself away in a room for 3 days with nothing to do and no one to talk to. by the end of the first day he had lost all sense of time and his circadian rhythm was way off, and in two days he started to lose some basic cognition. it's pretty interesting. and chris pratt's character fights through this for a year, trying to resist the urge to wake someone else while fighting off severe depression and possibly dementia. keep in mind this character is not an austronaut. he's not trained to be in isolation for long. he's just a regular technician. and although he had plenty of things to distract himself with, without someone else to share it with, it's just becomes repetitive and boring. i loved that aspect of the movie. experiencing extreme isolation is something we don't often get to experience and i think they made a fairly decent job portraying that.
This comment is so true. The technical problems definitely did not make sense, such as having no way to wake the crew, but the human story was what made the movie interesting to me. Isolation for a year, waking someone else up, then they find out after a year, all of that was what the movie was about. The interstellar spaceship was just a logical setting for such extreme isolation and drama.
If you watched that video you would have also seen the study NASA did where a woman was in isolation with books/entertainment for a long long time. She survived intact.
If you want a good story about someone waking up early in a damaged STL colony spacecraft light years from its destination, read _Hull Zero Three_ by Greg Bear. It's really imaginative, has some good philosophical themes and importantly: it's very hard sci-fi. There's only one thing that's soft sci-fi, and it barely even features, so you can pretty much ignore it.
Hell, it even gets centrifugal gravity right, unlike this movie. The hull's rotation speeds up and slows down, going between gravity and microgravity when that happens.
Thank you for the book suggestion!
actually, if the ship has a counterweight rotating the other way, it can speed up and slow down the rotation with standard electromotors, like gyrosopes do. Without, it would require firing thrusters. So the depiction in Passengers could be quite accurate.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 If think you misunderstand why the film is inaccurate. _Passengers_ shows the ship stop spinning because the power fails. This doesn't make sense - a spinning structure requires energy to _stop_ spinning. There's no air resistance to slow it down or anything.
The movie treats a centrifugal habitat as if it were a magic sci-fi articial gravity technology like you'd get on Star Trek, because the writers don't understand the difference.
@@ReddwarfIV Unless, a failsafe mechanism puts the brake on the counterweight that I mentioned. Not an unthinkable action?
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 The centrifuge continuing to spin is failsafe. A brake that stops the centrifuge when the power fails is _fail-deadly._ In zero-G, all unsecured objects (including that pool of water) will float, creating unneccesary hazards. Injuries would be harder to treat as blood doesn't flow away from a wound, it just bubbles up around it - or worse, you could get a geyser of blood that would spread droplets all over the habitat.
It also makes it harder for crew to navigate the spacecraft and respond to emergencies.
So while your idea is feasible engineering-wise, I see very little reason to implement it. The only reason I can imagine to perform a spin-down is if doing so would prevent some mechanical failure that would destroy the spacecraft, but that's a highly unlikely situation and probably not something that a power failure would cause.
Alone on a luxury interstellar MegaYacht with Jenifer and an awesome RoboTender!! Just the thought is great.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the Expanse series!
Even if the gravity is generated somehow, rather than being the result of the ship spinning, a huge volume of water isn't going to surge out of the pool because the gravity has failed. Its natural tendency is to stay where it is.
If the spinning section just stopped, inertia would have flung the water to one side of the interior, as in you lurching forward in a car stopping
@Sylvia Else Sorry, but you derped bad there. 🤭
@Alvin Walters This is "Science vs Cinema" where topics are discussed on reality vs fiction, feasibility vs impossible. Everyone in this thread already knows this movie is science fiction.
This is one of those sad situations in cinema, where the movie was bad, and it didn't need to be. Some minor (very minor) tweaks and this would have actually been a great movie.
I loved the movie. I enjoyed that they used a realistic propulsion system Nuclear (not the fictional Warp core). I enjoyed they didn't use gravity plates which no one has any idea how to create but used centrifugal force instead. The water scene was realistic in how the water behaved without gravity. If you watch NASA TV as I do you will see the same action with water on the ISS. The acting was top notch. Especially, how she reacted to finding out that she was woken up early. Special effects were great. The best film in 2016!
sure but then they forget that tears are also water and instead and streaming down your face they'd just huddle up in a ball around your eye lol also the warp drive may not be as fiction as you make out to be. it's called the alcubiere drive in the real world and is currently being studied for its potential and if it's physically possible at all. but hasn't been ruled out just yet.
The spin can continue even if the power of this spaceship shuts down. It is unreasonable to stop spinning of this ship sharply. So the gravity loss is totally large ERROR.
The ship was malfunctioning. You can assume a few different reasons why the rotation stopped. Such as the computer mistakenly stopped it or if you look at the ship closely it actually had 2 counter rotating rings. I assume these rotating sections ride on some sort of magnetic bearing so as to be near frictionless. If the bearing lost power the two section inertia would cancel each other out stopping the rotation.
Shardul Paranjape I actually doubt it would slow, since there's nothing to slow it.
The tear scene was very accurate compared to the movie Gravity. His tears stayed stuck to his face. It left his eyes and stuck to his cheek since some centrifugal forces still existed (change in direction). Space.com writes an interesting article on the movie. Listed below. Yes it's not perfect... it's a movie! Just like The Martian wasn't perfect (force of dust storm).
Sci-Fi Gets Science Right: 'Passengers' Nails the Physicswww.space.com/35104-passengers-scifi-movie-nails-space-physics.html
The warp drive is a far fetched idea since the amount of power to warp the fabric of space would take the power of a black hole. NASA comments on it's feasibility. (more of a dream than likely).
www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warp.html
The best part is where he blocks vented fusion with an airlock door and lives.
Yeah, but there was a talking raccoon in his last movie :)
I remember when I first heard about this movie and thought I was going to love it, then the trailer came out :( , then the movie came out :((.
... and then the Science vs. Cinema review came out. :(((
and i loved it even more
SengirShowsU trump supporter.
And when i realized there might be a child of this movie..I came out..*wink*
It's not a bad movie. It's just.... you know, a normal movie, nothing special. It's just not as good as it was promised to be. The only bad thing about this movie is just a little bit of miscast.
I definitely loved this movie. Although as you explain, it really was far fetched. The sci-fi portion is what I call "Entertainment Value" to be polite. Regardless I love the plot point of what would you do if you were alone like that. It raises so many psychology and existential questions.
no it was morally disgusting. if they weren't portrayed by 2 well liked and attractive actors you would really see how fucked up it is.
Sorry but doesn't the speed of a star relative to the trajectory of the spaceship enable a slingshot manoever? AFAIK stars are NOT fixed in the universe.
Seveneye the fastest stars relative to local neighbors move at about 3% the speed of light, and need to be orbiting a black hole closely. At relativistic speeds and interstellar distances, a slingshot maneuver would "work" but make an insignificant difference because of the already relativistic speeds (~0.5c for the ship.) as you get up to those speeds, energy added yields less speed and instead begins to contribute to relativistic mass, so a relativistic slingshot maneuver would also be more inefficient than one at speeds well explained with classical orbital mechanics
milesjsandifer Well, sounds good, wish I knew enough to agree with you. I'm gonna do some research now cause everything you said sounded really interesting. I knew the enterprise could've never saved the whales.
So, because they are moving 10-20 times faster, the gravitation assist would barely change their trajectory at all? Got it.
The problem is not necessarily whether or not the stars are fixed in space, it's the forces at play you need to reconcile.
You'd have to take into consideration the mass of the star (to find its gravitational pull), the relative vector of the star in relation to the ship, the ships mass, the ships vector in relation to the star and the proximity of the two objects.
Granted, the star is going to have a much higher mass, and therefore a very large gravitational pull, but at 50% the speed of light, which is 671 million miles an hour, you'd only be under the effects of that gravitational pull for minutes at most.
What about the plasma from the fusion core venting in to space and him standing there with his arm out? Or with a door to (partially) shield himself? The whole reason fusion reactors need a magnetic field to keep the plasma in check is because it burn through pretty much anything it touches extremely fast. So his space suit is able to resist plasma but the ship isn't? Doesn't make sense...
Well in reality plasma in a fusion reactor is not qite as dangerous as people make it out to be. It is incredibly hot, yes, but there is also very litle of it.
The main reason we need the magnetic containment is not because without it the plasma would burn the entire reactor building but because it would melt off the inner layer of the wall which would rapidly contaminate and cool down the plasma.
With a thin layor of high temperature resistant metal you could actually shield yourself.
I do however doubt a space suit could withstand the heat.
The plasma of a fusion reactor actually is quite vulnerable. Change one of a hundred variables by a smidge and it will cool down real quick. But one must remember that a fusion reactor works with very very little gas, the inside has an almost perfect vacuum. Wendelstein 7-X, the currently biggest nuclear fusion experimental facility has a plasma mass of only 5 to 30 milligrams spread over the volume of 30 cubic meters. There is just nothing there to spectacularly go anywhere.
A major plot element is that some embedded computer in the reactor control system failed, and the other computers across the ship needed to compensate. What? Really, you're going to use the CPU of some wirelessly connected roving robot for containment of the fusion process?
And then those devices all fail. Because that's what happens when your CPU runs at 100% yet it can't complete its tasks in time. Your laptop explodes.
Having said all that, I enjoyed the movie. Great visuals, original premise, quite passable dialogue and acting, funny. I noticed all the problems but it didn't yank me out of my suspension of disbelief. I just let myself be carried along for the ride.
@Artificial gravity - actually, once the ship started spinning, it will practically never stop. There is virtually no friction in space to stop it, so the only way to wear off the inertia is via gravitational wave radiation, and with relatively small mass of the ship and slow rotation speed it would most probably take longer then the age of universe.
So - basically, they have free gravity forever. Yay!
The only way to stop the ship from spinning is to use engines (not the main ones, they should have some just for rotation). And that requires energy. As much energy as it took to get the gravity running to be exact.
After seeing this review and reading the comments I conclude that you all hoped for the movie to be boring, because it was if everything had to be perfectly realistic. How else could they write a thrilling story like that.
I'm also a science enthusiast but this is a science fiction movie not a science fact movie.
Common guys, am I the only one who enjoyed this movie?
I have it on 3D Bluray LOVE Passengers 3D!
I liked the movie. Its like most movies. I think from his perspective and many others movies like this insults the intelligence of the everyday person.
I enjoyed it, but I still nitpicked many of the plot points.
As far as it being boring if there was more realism, that's not exactly true. The stacking of failures was a nice touch, and to incorporate that with the gravity failure, THAT would be terrifying. If you swimmed long enough for the ship to lose momentum, things would get very interesting. The depiction of the way the water would react was pretty close too, but I don't recall if the bubbles of air she had exhausted had clung to her (btw, neat prevention of such incidents would be using perfluorocarbon as the "water" instead of...water, it's also known as LiquiVent).
Loved this movie. Yes it was contrived. All movies are. The Martian; we have got a human Mars program but we only have one booster built that can send a payload to Mars. Oh and then it blows up and secretly the Chinese also have exactly one booster that can do the trick. An affordable human Mars program is going to mass produce reusable boosters. But I loved the Martian for trying. Passengers tries too. A trip to another star taking over a hundred years; So much more realistic than Star Wars or even Star Trek. A belief in systems being infallible; Titanic anyone? Of course he should know that the message should take years to go round trip to Earth.; sure unless he watched to much Star Trek and assumed that if the system was offering to send it there was some kind of subspace magic tech involved. The gravity turning off being related to the spin of the ship; I don't think so. This is taking place at least thousands of years in the future, I assume gravity failure means artificial gravity as in technology so far advanced that it is indistinguishable from magic. Same with the ability to get a cruise ship to half c. But I love the fact that despite magic tech, they still take over a hundred years to travel to a nearby star. It opens the mind to the idea that even with magic tech space is huge and won't provide weekly encounters with aliens as in Star Trek. For me, the movie was really about the psychological disconnect between space and how big it is and how small and limited we are. The contrast between being on a luxury cruise ship and at the same time being cast away alone for your whole life because space is too big and our lives are too short is a contrast that puts the size of the universe into a human perspective.
This movie would have been more interesting if Jim woke a girl up. Have his fun with her, then *killed her* and woke up another one. *Psycho in space.*
Or if they would switch first and second thirds of the movie around, having the "I woke you up" line to be a wham plot twist.
Darth Biomech You watched that RUclips essay as well I see
Dude, serious issues !
You're fucked up, but I'd definitely watch it too..
Yah but Jennifer Lawrence is looking good so...? eh?
meh
shes a pig
@Jumbomuffin13 no not only me, says her and every one she acts with
Cool
That's part of the nice visuals ;)
No one is gonna talk about that ending? The crew wakes up and all the colonization plant life resources are used for a pretty surprise? Not to mention those same plants and trees wreaking havoc on the internal structures of the ship, since the couple would've died years earlier and wouldn't have controlled it.
What I gathered from the movie is that those flight were pretty routine by the time events of the movie happen. They do not fly there to setup a fresh colony.
Only wake up one girl, that make no sense.
More than one girl would create drama
advlogs dez why the butthurt?
The only thing worse than one psychotic, irrational co-survivor...
is two of them.
Waking someone up is basically murder. Why would he do it more than once?
@@Gooberpatrol66 to murder more.. duhhh.
This movie is like titanic for the people who want relationship drama AND have been clobbered in the head so hard they forgot what good writing was or how science worked.
Another issue I had was time dilation. No way... If the ship travels with half the speed of light, time dilation should be great enough to seriously shift the "experienced" time of the passangers in relation to the "experienced time" on earth, right?
How, for heavens sake, can a company like "Homestead" work in a world like that? Apparently they have set up the colonies before sending people there... That's a tremendous undertaking that takes many hundreds of years before even the first settler climbs into a spaceship. I tried to wrap my head around the logistical effort, but just couldn't do it.
The problem with this movie is that people went into it thinking it's going to be something like Interstellar or The Martian. It's not. It was never intended to be. It was meant to be a sci-fi drama. They weren't focusing on the science. They were focused on the relationship. Anyone, reviewers included, who either ignored or didn't realize that weren't paying attention.
I think that's a super valid point, but something that I always come back to is that it wouldn't change the human element of the story if the science was done right. It wouldn't even be that much harder to write. What is the motivation for making bad explanations when you could make good explanations?
@@johnmorrell3187 I don't think they cared about how much effort it would have taken to make it scientifically accurate. I think they just wanted a romance/Stockholm genera movie set in space, and they were going to do it regardless of scientific accuracy.
EXACTLY...RESPECT THE AUDIENCE, ANDY. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK, DR. WE NEED YOU. LIKE, WE REALLY NEED YOU--IT'S GETTING BAD. THANKS!!!!
A tear runs down Chris Pratt's face when hes on his first space walk. That's when I knew this movie wasn't going to get real and I stopped waiting.
Then there is the whole "OMG, fusion reactor losing containment or whatever, it's gonna blow!"
Fusion reactors (AFAIK) need containment (magnetic fields) to be able to run. No containment, reactor just shuts down. No problem.
my problem with the messaging "app" is that why it was there in the first place? they were supposed to wake up 120 years later, why would anyone want to send a message back from the destination as it'd take 240 years to get a response :) aside from the inaccuracies, i loved the movie as it was anyway. the visuals were just WOW
All things said here are sadly true, but i nonetheless enjoyed the movie very much. It has a narrative that you'll never see in another movie. Hollywood is offending our intelligence practically in every blockbuster movie on the most basic facts of life. We need a youtube channel called Common Sense Vs Cinema.
This movie comes along and bends the laws of physics, i agree, but it's nonetheless a nice story about human life.
Home alone was also a movie full of non-sense, however it was very enjoyable for adults also. If there ever was a kid saying "That is not possible! What bullshit" that would be a smart kid. But a kid that missed something magical nonetheless.
You are brain dead to think this movie is worth watching. The money wasted on this was a crime!!
@@Richardparent879 You haven't watched The Titan then? [Hint: Don't. Really don't.]
"We need a RUclips channel called Common Sense Vs Cinema"
So basically CinemaSins?
ruclips.net/user/CinemaSins
This is why a friend of mine recommended this film to me; even though from a pure sci-fi perspective the film is trash, but I could see why he liked it. Although I appreciate that viewpoint, it's still a bad film.
Also, in the pool scene, she drowns in the water as if she couldn't move in there because no gravity. YOU CAN PERFECTLY SWIM IN A BIG MASS OF WATER, even in vacuum. But she was just "stuck" there as if it was air, no matter how hard she tried.
They also forgot that they're moving at 50% the speed of light, so... 149896.229 km/s
And 55 years, the time it would take for the message to go and come back, would be a lot less for him if we're talking about earth time, and a lot more for earth and for the message outside the spaceship if we're talking about spaceship time. 55 years for him would be 63.5085297 years on earth, assuming the computer is smart enough to actually tell him how long he'll actually have to wait. But they just completely forgot time dilation.
I think the silliest thing is how the whole ship is operational despite the fact that everyone is supposed to be asleep - the lights are one, the classes are running, there's an announcement when they slingshot around the star, etc.
We couldn't fool this guy! We should've just told him that this is a movie from the beginning
If the spin is generated by counterspinning a counterweight, the ship could stand still very fast if the failsafe is to stop spinning, in which case failsafe brakes would be applied and the spinning would be stopped in notime.
I can forgive the asteroid thing because encountering interstellar debris is a huge problem for interstellar travel concepts. At half light speed, something that’d make a hole that big would probably be microscopic. At the interstellar average, you’d encounter an object with the same energy as a bullet roughly every second.
now this is the review a movie like this deserves! PS loved the martian review by u!
Its a movie not a science documentary so if it entertained you before this review it did its job but if you say you don't like the movie after this review, then that's not fair.
Hiren Patel this movie's logic was laughable right from the beginning, this review has nothing to do with that.
Debby Scott
Wow! so you are predicting the future? You mean to say that there are no planets that can support human life in universe and that a company will not try not to take advantage of a planet that is habitable??
Its a story set in future, you cant be 100% sure if you will wake up the next morning and you argue logic?? Hmmmm.. ok...
Hiren Patel READ my comment first and UNDERSTAND that I disliked the movie because of its unrealistic portrayal of any sort of space travel.
But since you talk about future, go and watch the movie and then study the basics of interplanetary journey. Then compare them.
While we have pretty believable futuristic sci fi movies like The Martian, Gatacca or Contact, this movie is a pile of crap in front of them.
Debby Scott So didnt even watch the movie and are still commenting on it based on the review? Wow..!!
You are forgetting the most eye rolling one:
- after conquering interstellar travel, They still have door failures where they need a person to hold the door open.
- And: Oh the AutoDoc can put you in hibernation! But only 1 AutoDoc! There is no way we can put one of us to sleep first, and move that person to an empty sleep pod, then put the 2nd person to sleep in the AutoDoc...
- And why couldn't the ship AI re-purpose one of those sushi making Robots to replace the damaged core computer blades? All it seemed to involve is to pull the damaged blade out, and slide a backup blade in...
Anyone else notice how wrong the time was when Jim tried to send back a message. They were 30 years into their journey and were apparently 19light years from earth, this means they flew 19 light years in 30 years. Even without acceleration this would mean they traveled around 2/3 the speed of light average. We know they were going 1/2 the speed of light so the only way the message can take 19 years is if they launch it and earth call centres cease to exist for 4 years minimum
This is the unofficial "Everything Wrong With Passengers" video. Just the thing I was looking for!
Wait stars are in orbit around the galaxy's superblackhole right? Wouldn't a ship be able to to use that orbit to do a gravity assist?
This movie is still a favorite of mine. I love the chemistry between Jen & Chris. However, when I take myself out of the film and look at it objectively, I agree with some of what he says here. Here are my peevs:
- "For two unlucky people, we sure are pretty lucky." (Or something to that effect.) Aurora Lane is immediately established as a smart person, yet it doesn't dawn on her that her awakening was no accident until Arthur tells her. The fact that she never even considered the possibility isn't a credit to her intelligence. Then again, it likely wouldn't have occurred to her because doing such a thing is unconscionable. Still, a logical person would have considered the possibility.
- The asteroid collision. I forget what year or century the film takes place, but come on. We have orbital telescopes that can see objects many, MANY billions of light years into deep space! They couldn't put some kind of array on the front of the ship that could detect, or at least observe, solid objects soon enough to avoid a collision? And the asteroid they hit was huge! That was a little hard to believe or accept.
- Arcturus. I'm sure there are many other red giant stars they could have showcased. Given their speed and elapsed time, they were nowhere near that particular star.
Nevertheless, I love the movie, mostly because of the actors' performances and the amount of introspection it causes. Also, Jen did that zero-gravity water stunt, herself, in a tank! BOSS!!
Could you do "Moon" next? I think you could have a lot of fun with that one.
I loved this film. But I have to agree with everything here. My problem was - which interestingly doesn`t get to mention in this clip - that if you go with such high speed you don`t see the surrounding universe as they did because of the Doppler-effect.
Jennifer Lawrence in that bathingsuit gets a pass though!
why would you even need a bathing suit if it's just her and him? just sayin it might have made an interesting movie even more interesting.
mattpetty1 , yes they need to xxx pasengger 😁
Oh hell yeah
But it has pretty effects. Surely that counts for something.
Care to analyze Interstellar or The Expanse?
I totally agree that the science, especially in the last third, doesn't make sense. But the thing is for the most part this really isn't a sci-fi movie. It's not basing a lot of entertainment value on the cool sci-fi ideas; it's just using this space ship as a stage for a romance to play out. So yes, when the giant holes punched through the ship somehow cause the cleaning robots to fail, or when they need to use a big hammer to vent the fusion reactor for some reason, it doesn't make much sense and the last third is pretty week. But the majority of the movie doesn't rely on the science at all; it relies on the emotional impact of being alone for decades, and the guilt of bringing someone else onto the 'deserted island', and the tension that causes.
Keep saying to yourself, "it's only a movie. It's only a movie."
People that believe they are critics can't do that. There's a reason its called science FICTION. I wonder what part of science fiction he is having trouble grasping .....................................
@Ben Porter Yeah..... that's right. Movies are just...... movies but real life is real life.
Agree about the major slips but there were some things they did put into place well. The spinning ship that looks like three cruise ships tied together actually has a diameter large enough for gravity and water would form a ball even though there is no way it gravity could stop like that. What I found more disappointing is that she can't get out of the ball. You can get to the surface of the water with no problem. You can basically swim into the air...
love the film by the way
ok so there are many topics and some are ok but there are 4 I massively disagree:
1) The film makes clear that they can only make the procedure to put someone to sleep on Earth. The ship can't make it.
2) They didn't have access to the diagnostics room until Gus wakes up and at that time the diagnostics equipment was not working.
3) It makes total sense to have a lock room for the crew and bridge in a ship with passengers. You want to protect against crazy people or revolt trying to take over.
4) Robots are made for a specific task and of course you can't ask a bartender about ship engineering.
This is amazing movie, of course there are some things which are not ideally scientific, but after 100 years we could build real starship and trust me, there will some much technology we even cant imagine today... Love the Movie
this should be seen similar to the Martian chronicles. Dealing with philisophical themes, with a vague sci-fi context to allow the ideas to play out
There's this funny passage in one of Douglas Adams books where a huge spaceship full of people gets hit and the crew has no memory of their mission. Reminds me of it
Did people actually expect EITHER the story OR the science to be any good in this movie? Just look at who is starring in it (America's son Chris Pratt and "I'm too good to have to wear makeup for a movie even though I'm a paid actress" Jennifer Lawrence). And it's a romance movie (I think?), which means not even emotions are going to be real.
Way to go, Hollywood.
Most of your points seem reasonable, but I thought it was pretty clear that there was a diagnostic system that would have told them what the problem was, but a) it was on the bridge which wasn't accessible, and b) it malfunctioned before they were able to gain access to the bridge.
If the spinning section just stopped, inertia would have flung the water to one side of the interior, as in you lurching forward in a car stopping.
Partly correct; there is still an outward momentum due to centrifugal forces, so the motion of the water would be a vector of the two forces. But in the film it just rises upward, i.e. no simulated gravity ergo it must rise. That's complete nonsense.
The movie was totally unbelievable but I enjoyed it. I was a brain in a jar movie. Pure entertainment
Using a star for an Oberth maneuver might be a thing. In this case thrust applied while deep in a gravity well has a larger impact on delta-v.
Shame on you! I love this movie!
Slingshot around a star is so a thing. It is just like slingshot around the Jupiter. Instead of travel in the solar system it is travelling in a Galaxy with stars circulating the center of the Galaxy. You don't slingshot around the moon of Jupiter when you are trying to reach Mars. Besides, the crew who woke up mentioned the ship is merely traveling at 50% light speed, which means the ship merely 1.155 times the mass of its rest mass, which is not so hard to overcome.
Big brain thought: Why would they add a lock to the crew coma pods if nobody would wake up untill a month after the crew?
Your right of course but I still really liked the movie. I dont really think about the plausibility of it all until maybe after as long as I get into it..
You'd be surprised how many people have no frikkin clue what the speed of light is, let alone the speed of sound. And even less people know the difference between light and sound.
when people ask me what Passengers was about i say its a love story in space.
I think that the saddest thing about the movie is that in the future life expectancy is still the same, somehow humans can travel at half the speed of light but no one figured out how to make people live longer =/
The science behind this movie wasn't that bad, you're being too harsh.
What's really questionable is the economic logic behind the whole thing. How is this all being paid for?
The movie explains that the passengers have to pay a fee, and contribute 20% of their income in taxes once they get to Homestead 2. Sounds alright as a travel plan for a trip between continents on Earth, but how does this work when the tax paying passengers are light years from company headquarters on back Earth?
Imagine being a potential investor listening to the company's business plan. They build this hugely expensive ship, passengers pay a fee, but not enough to cover the full cost of the ship, it spends 120 years in space. Once they arrive they start sending money back to HQ, and since they can only communicate at light speed, the money takes another 120 years to start arriving.
So you basically won't be seeing your original investment pay back itself for at least 240 years. Dumb
Maybe the stock market is really stupid in the future.
Dude, they paid for they ticket before they got boarded on the ship. It's like buying a real lofe ticket, I mean you pay, and then you get the ticket, the same way it was in the movie.
@@marktakac8337 That's not how I remember it being explained in the movie. The full cost of the journey wasn't covered by the ticket price, rather the taxes they pay on arrival. Still fun to think about.
Well, it was thought that the Titanic was unsinkable, stands to reason there's a little hubris involved with the design of the Avalon and the hibernation pods on the part of the Homestead Corp. At the very least they should've had the engineering and bridge crew on a rotation and had the means to re-hibernate people aboard ship (and more than ONE autodoc), with so many months or years keeping the ship running right and flying straight, so many months or years being a human popsicle and staving off the aging process.
subscribed, awesome work.
i would love a science vs cinema episode on Interstellar.
Agree with criticism regard to Arcturus slingshot. However here one thing regard to Avalon journey to Homestead at 50% speed of light who takes 120 years. This mean Homestead is approx: 60 light-year from Earth.
So when Jim wake up 30 years into the journey. Avalon has only finish with 1/4 of its journey to Homestead.. Meantime Earth discovers same time warp speed technology and can make spaceship f.e. can go 10 times faster then speed of light. So by default this warp speeding ship could reach Avalon within 5 years and rescues Jim and Aurora.
Hi Andy! Actually the gravity would just give out like that. because the
gravity generated in such a way depends on circular acceleration. and
the moment the ship loses circular acceleration, the shit might still be
spinning, but the centripetal force is gone.
This can't be true. Otherwise ships, in order to keep a stable artificial gravity, would need to ramp up their rotational velocity all the time. The accelaration of a constantly spinning object is changed at every point in time via direction. So the angular velocity can stay the same. No air resistance, so the only friction to overcome are the gears and junctions sliding. Over a long journey they will need to compensate only that. The engines stopping means only a very slow decline in angular velocity.
When you're in zero-g, and need to pull someone towards you with a tether, you should give one good pull, and then wait from them to arrive. If you keep pulling, they'll hit you at speed. Making this mistake with a large object can kill you.
1: If you have very good robotics and access to the plentiful resources of the asteroid belt its really easy to build giant structures in space making your spaceship much bigger than it needs to be and luxurious. It does not have large fuel tanks so presumably the force thfied also work as a Bussard Ramscoop gathering fusion fuel as they go.
2: The ship would have a procedure to stop spinning in case there was a structural fault in the beams, so the ship does not tear itself apart. So it is a feature accidentally being turned on rather than off.
3: Tru cop Stars do have angular momentum relative to each other but nothing that would be worth it when you are already going so fast. The writer should of at least chosen a star the right distance away probably forgot to divide by two.
4:You have to show something for the film and the film does show the shield breaking it down into a much smaller object before it hits the hull probably dust or grit sized. The long range sensors must of already been faulty that day.
5: Apparently its proprietary tech and they don't want the secret sauce getting out.
6:Any length of time dealing with technology does not make oversights like these surprising. We already have chatbots today.
7:Why do you need a locked door when there is no one to lock out that is odd.
8:He just woke up he is confused does not know what time it is, and allot of the audience will need reminding about the timescales.
9: All movies have plot holes I consider this one better than most sci fi films, I liked it.
2: Until you consider that rapid stop of millions of tonnes of steel from rotating would generate even more stress in the structure than failed beam. Basically you'd be fucked either way.
one more point on the Tech problem. Wouldn't they already have a plan in place for a technical issue planned out before the ship launches, say engineers who would come out of staysis to fix things instead of the freaking passengers.
I didn't understand the slingshotting around the star, I'm a huge space nerd. Stars rotate, so slowing down by going against the stars rotation makes sense to me, just like with planets. Can someone please go into more detail for me?
I agree with the analysis overall and I enjoyed watching it. I also think, as you do, that the producers didn't get the science right. The post production people also didn't do their job. Over the ending credits, they should have played The Fixx's "Secret Separation." It would have been the most perfect song for this movie. The song even has a the perfect line, "passengers in time" as if it was written in 1986 for 2016. If you turn the volume off at the end and play Secret Separation, it fits perfectly.
And the guy survive exposition to super hot plasma from fusion chamber without being disintegrated or even irradiated.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the tiny hole sucking them into the room and how they had to save themselves by covering it with the Ipad thing and then some sort of fire foam. The force of the air pushing them into the room probably would lift them off their feet going out such a tiny hole. It's just 1 atmosphere. They use that trope in movies too much. The worst case was in Aliens 4 where Ripley makes a tiny hole in a window with her hybrid acid blood and it sucks an entire creature out to space.
Although I liked the movie from a storytelling point of view, the scientific inaccuracies drove me nuts.
I would also give it a negative for the misrepresentation of the plot in the trailer:
"This wasn't an accident." - Yes, it pretty much was. At no point in the movie did the story even hint that something was planned to wake Jim Preston up.
"There's something they didn't tell us." - Again, hinting at the idea of some conspiracy.
"There's a reason we woke up early." - This again provokes the idea that by "reason" he means someone meant for it, not the "reason" being the unexpected collision with a rock.
Final Grade: D-, “it's not a horrible movie, and that's the best thing I can say for it science wise.”
The “They put their name on the exam” of sci-fi movies, lol
Actually unmanned probes did go around the sun to go to the outer planets or the inner planets in the past and will do so in future explorations. Including manned one to save fuel. Need to watch some documentaries that many NASA filmed inside rockets fuel tank to see how liquid reacts when the engine shut down in space, then starts up, including Space X videos too.
It's like the movie "Armageddon". They made such a big deal about the surface low gravity of the comet that the vehicle AND the space suits all had thrusters that kept you in contact with the ground. It was a core issue at several points in the plot line.
But inside the shuttles, when no one was wearing any suits with thrusters to keep them in place, they have no problem running around and everything responding like it was in normal gravity and not the microgravity of the comet. WTF?
I'll gladly suspend disbelief for a movie. I do it all the time.
But why the fuck point it out, then ignore it, then point it out again?
I felt insulted. Like they thought I was too stupid to notice such an blatant incongruity.
I think the idea that an engineer & mechanic being the one to wake up is too coincidental to be real is like saying Ken Mattingly staying behind on Apollo 13 and ends up helping save the lives of the crew is too coincidental to be real & be believed.
I remember how the girl from the movie said that she wanted to be on the new planet only for a year and then go back.How was she going to hibernate again if there is no lab that can put her back in to hibernation again? Thew were going to build one on the new planet or what ?
Scientists believe they know so much more than they really do. There is a fair amount (relatively speaking) that we do understand but so many theories are crushed every day in the world of science with new discoveries. In case of this movie, I never looked at it this movie as to how accurate is the science like you can do with The Martian for example. You really have to just sit back and enjoy the the art of story telling. Some will hate it. It really depends on what attitude or expectation you go in with. Sometimes you just have to go in with none. Could I find fault in it this movie, sure. But, I found a lot to love. The scenery and vistas of space are incredible. Some of the best I have seen. If you are trying to hold this and many other similar type movies to the realtivily small amount we know or think we know about this vast universe, you will always be diappointed.
I agree. Plus this guy is clearly not an engineer, otherwise he would have known that any kind of interstellar vessel *needs* to be *huge*. Given that more than 90% of the ship's mass is going to be fuel anyway, there no reason not to add another few thousand tons of mass for some luxury. Doesn't make a big difference (as opposed to our current spacecraft that can't even get past the moon).
I was especially annoyed by his smug attitude towards the ship's computers. As a software engineer who works in an A.I. related field, I felt delighted by the film's portrayal of this particular aspect because that's *exactly* how real A.I. works. The ship's main computer's job was to fly the damn thing, not to interact verbally(!!!) with random passengers. For the same reason the in-flight entertainment system on a modern passenger jet is disconnected from the flight controls, the computers the main character interacted with were disconnected from the ship's main computers. That's simple common sense and logic that the guy simply overlooked.
While watching the film I was briefly disturbed by the fact that the main computer didn't wake some of the crew members when it encountered problems, but then it struck me: waking up a crew member basically ruins their life since the film's rules imply they can't be sent back to hyper-sleep. And even that particular aspect isn't that far-fetched either. If it really takes a complex medical procedure to send someone into hyper-sleep, why would you even have spare sleeping chambers? Again - same reason hospitals don't just have a "spare" MRI machine - this stuff is expensive and basically never fails while in operation.
Sorry for the long rant, but I really hate when people start criticising aspects of fictional work that don't even fall into their particular area of expertise. It would have been more honest of him to simply say he just didn't like the film.
didn't even mention the fact that the spinning wheels of the ship *aren't even necessary* for "gravity".. assuming the ship is under constant acceleration to the halfway point then doing a "turn & burn" maneuver to decelerate to the destination. (otherwise why would the fusion propulsion system be running the whole time?) then the force of that constant acceleration would provide the feel of gravity.
With the spinning hubs, you're just adding 2 different vectors of force.. for.. some reason?
one thing I didn't understand is the point in waking up 3 months early, too much risk for these passengers to wage a war against each due to spacephobia
this channel needs more videos sigh
Wait, I didn't pay much attention during the movie, but was the destination star really Arcturus? A red giant? Why go there of all places?
6:41
This is incidentally my biggest problem with the last third of Rogue One, nothing they have to do is established beforehand, so there is no real tension.
Found all the footage for the whole plot from Just the trailers.
why no mention about the fusion reactor and how chris patt turns red fumes into blue by opening an exhaust door with a piece of door as radiation shield and thus saving the ship.
Though we liked the movie (enough to rent), we picked up on most everything you did. One thing that also stood out (that you didn't mention) was that there was only ONE Med-Table for 5000+ people on the ship. Talk about optimistic engineering. AND of course, in all their time on the ship, the ship tech support never told them they could use it to hibernate, he had to find that little detail in a manual about the table. (sheeeesh)
These types of writing conceits are so cliche. They could have had multiple Med-tables with the 'gotcha' that in order to hibernate it requires manual activation outside the pod. Alternative ending could have been (based on multiple Med-Tables) he puts her in a coma, they cry, she goes to sleep. She is revived by Andy Garcia, she shakes off her hibernation, camera pulls back to find Pratt had rigged the bartender to manually operated a second Med-table...he's there with her. They embrace looking at the planet as they arrive. "Maybe we'll just start a family here..." fade out.
Also - where did the birds come from in that end shot? I guess they were bringing animals to the new planet...so were the birds in hibernation? And...'adam and eve' never had children I guess.
Between Pratt and Lawrence and the design work, the film is visually very pleasing, you just have to not think about the science.
I felt like the Artificial Intelligences on the ship seemed too stupid compared to the rest of the technologies shown. By the time humans can travel at half the speed of light, induce an age-suspending coma, and colonize another planet we should have AI that's closer to Samantha in "Her" than to Siri.
Hey, you have to make more of theese, yesterday!
Are super hero movies subject to analysis? Please do Ant-man!!!
Look up star talk podcast. Neil degrasse has an ep with jack black and they discuss any man. It’s dope
A smallish rock consisting of heavy elements, reduced to even smaller pieces by the ship's "plasma/force/magnetic/whatever" shield could penetrate it like that, like a railgun slug in The Expanse.
I don't think they would need any crew available at all times, granted the computer is smart enough to wake them up when really needed. Which would mean they need to have some means to re-hibernate them. So yeah, that seems like a device plot. Clearly the med bay thing can do that so it shouldn't be too difficult to have more of that.
I thought it was a great movie, sure there were some inaccuracies but, what movie doesn't? I also don't get why you're so cynical about a movie that takes place god knows how many years in the future... I'm assuming your review is based on you knowing what humans will or will not be capable of in the future? In that case, you should you should be helping the government predict future tragedies not making shitty RUclips reviews. Also, you question why the ships ai doesn't know anything about one passenger waking up, its repeated several times throughout the movie that the pods never fail so why would the creators of the ai teach it how to address a problem that doesn't exist in their minds? As for the replacement parts, do you think this is the only fucking ship going to homestead ll? Maybe that in regular trips, 5000 people walking around the ship for four months wouldn't break something and maybe other ships need the parts? Also, it's not uncommon in science fiction that communication between distant stars is made possible....If i were a passenger on an interplanetary star liner insure as fuck would think so too. The guy is a fucking mechanic, not a physicist...
Sam "A fucking mechanic", as you put it, should know basic university physics.
@@vampyricon7026 I never met a mechanic that could define the word physics!
Thanks for the video. While your assertions are certainly valid, your ire is misplaced. The film is a monument to Murphy's Law - Whatever can go wrong, it will...usually at the worst time. It's also a testament that no matter how advanced we become, technologies falter when things go off the rails.
1:09 That beep is so familiar
Isnt that steam's message notification?
A coincidence, of asteroid streams, might be more plausible against tech support, plus dialog-'What kind of grades did you get in college math... B, mostly... So if a stream of asteroids is 1% probable you route around it, What's the probability of three streams on three axes. Micro. Insurance doesn't pay on low-probability "Acts Of God," High school.'