ALL SCI-FI

[Bud Brewster]

*____*____*____Spoilers____*____*____*

A movie made for exactly $100 million dollars that earned $716 million dollars . . . and it doesn't have enough story to fill a decent sized sentence. Sort of like this:

"Astronaut Sandra Bullock gets her space shuttle shot out from under her by orbiting debris, and she has to get down to Earth somehow . . . so she does."

I'm not saying that nothing interesting happens along the way, but I for one would have appreciated a few more characters along for the ride to give Sandra somebody to talk to -- and to give me somebody to listen besides her.

That would also give the audience somebody besides Sandra to worry about, because George Clooney checks out pretty early, and we know damn well Sandra isn't going to die. That would be just too depressing.

Because of this, I just didn't get really worried when Sandra made her desperate struggle to stay alive.

I'm glad the movie made a bundle of money, but it seems a bit unfair that movies with much better plots — like "John Carter" — didn't exactly earn back seven times their hefty budgets.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[orzel-w]

You might as well skip The Martian, too, when it's released. It's only about a guy surviving alone on Mars until he can be rescued. And no aliens.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------

[ralfy]

I found several scientific errors annoying, and I noticed some of them while I was watching the movie.

[Bud Brewster]

[orzel-w]

[Pow]

Love Sandy, George is cool. FX majestic. However, this one was a yawner for me.

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

Tonight I watched Gravity again. Knowing what to expect this time, I enjoyed it a lot more.

Maybe the fact that I recently watched (and loved) The Martian gave me a greater appreciation for this polished tale of one desperate person's fight to stay alive, despite slim odds and massive challenges.

In other words, I was wrong when I dismissed it so lightly in my first post above.

Gee, I just love it when I have to change my mind about a movie . . . and gain a new one to enjoy.

I had an interesting idea while watching those great FX of the space junk when it chopped up the shuttle and the two space stations. What if a fleet of invading aliens pulled into orbit and starting sending us messages about how we'd better surrender because they can beat us up with their advanced weapons without even breaking a sweat.

Suddenly the abundant space junk in Earth orbit starts pinging against their ships . . . then more space junk starts punching holes . . . then more space junk turns them into Swiss cheese and the aliens start spewing out of the holes.

Ironic, right? Sort of like a version of the microbes that killed the Martians in War of the Worlds.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[alltare]

[Bud Brewster]

__________________________________

Steve, it looks like you're right . . . or at least more right than I was. Watch this clip and you'll see that even though George definitely was not thrusting laterally the entire time, he is thrusting in all directions quite often (up, down, sideways, and he even doing rolls), which proves that I was wrong when I said —

"He moved as if he was flying a plane and had to thrust to the rear to go forward — ignoring the fact that inertia would cause him to keep going once he was moving (no need for constant thrust), and he would only be able to turn if he was thrusting laterally the entire time."

And since he wasn't really going in perfect circles (we don't even see him on screen during some parts of the scene), my original statement over-simplified the situation.

Watch this and see what you think.
__________________________________

__________________ Gravity - opening scene


__________
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

IMDB has 70 trivia items for this movie. Here’s a few of the ones I found the most interesting, in the blue text.
________________________________

~ The film's cascade of debris is a very real possibility. This scenario is known as the Kessler syndrome, named after N.A.S.A. scientist Donald J. Kessler who first proposed the theory in 1978. A cascading Kessler syndrome involving an object the size of the International Space Station would trigger a catastrophic chain-reaction of debris. The orbiting debris field would make it impossible to launch space exploration missions or satellites for many decades.

Note from me: Wow, I never thought of that! The original cloud of debris (a destroyed satellite caused by a meteoroid) smashing another satellite, increasing the debris, etc. etc.

Is there any way to clear away some of the space junk and prevent this disaster? Since it could start at any time, we'd have to have a fleet of spacecraft designed to (somehow) chase down space junk before it contributes to a growing cascade.

If we can't find a way to do this, we could end up being barricaded inside an orbiting shell of deadly debris that prevents us from going out into space at all!

~ In the opening scene, as Kowalski flies very close to the camera, astronauts holding a movie camera and boom mic appear to be reflected in his helmet visor. This is an in-joke by director Cuarón. The production crew's "reflections" were added with CGI to make it look like the scene was actually filmed in space, and that the post-production team failed to digitally paint-out those reflections.

Note from me: Ah-ha! So, all the conspiracy theories about the Moon landings being faked have it backwards! The evidence that allegedly proves they were faked is actually "fake evidence" created by NASA to make the real Moon landings seem faked, so that . . . ummm . . . okay, sorry, I got nothin'.

~ Various mechanical sounds made by the spacecraft are heard on the sound-track as a result of conduction through the astronauts' bodies while they are in contact with the station. For example, when Ryan Stone is frantically trying to grab the handles as she flies by the station, the sounds of the station are heard while she is holding a handle, and they cease when she lets go. On the actual Lunar missions, the sounds of astronauts hitting their hammers on core sample tubes were conducted through their bodies and transmitted through their microphones.

Note from me: Ah-ha! When the sounds we hear from the Apollo astronauts on the airless Moon are offered as evidence that the landings were faked, they actually prove the landings were NOT faked, because if they WERE faked, the fakers wouldn't have allowed any sounds to come through!

Or would they? Okay, I'm getting confused.

~ When the script was finalized, Alfonso Cuarón assumed it would take about a year to complete the film, but it took four and a half years.

Note from me: In space, no one can hear the producer scream, "You're behind schedule and over budget!"

~ The film is ninety minutes long. In reality, the International Space Station travels at approximately 17,500 miles per hour, and orbits Earth every ninety minutes. The debris field also circles Earth every ninety minutes.

Note from me: I think maybe the movie had to cheat a little when it has the debris cloud zipped past Sandra twice in the movie.

Mission Control tells Sandra and George that the debris cloud is approach them faster than bullet's travel. I think that's wrong. Here's why.

For the record, all satellites have west-to-east equatorial orbits, or polar orbits (in both directions).

If both the debris cloud and the shuttle (and also the space station) are going about 17,500 mph in west-to-east orbits, the cloud would do exactly what we see in the movie: zip past the shuttle at about 100 mph because it's going just a little faster than it's original orbital velocity after the collisions that created it.

That means the debris cloud would not catch up with Sandra again for 240 hours, not a mere 90 minutes later when it goes past her the second time in the space station. The orbits of the satellites (and Sandra) are a little more than 24,000 miles in circumference, so it would take ten days for the cloud to catch up with her again, because it's only going about 100 mph faster than she is.

Could there have been two or more debris clouds?

Not unless they were caused by separate events, rather than an initial event which caused a chain reaction. If two large objects collide, two large clouds on different trajectories are created.

But if a satellite is smashed by a meteoroid (or a missile, like in the movie), the subsequent collisions between pieces and other satellites simply causes the cloud to obtain more debris. The new debris can't go faster than the stuff that hit it, although the stuff that hit it WILL be slowed down a bit (naturally).

Admittedly a lot of it would radiate outward from the impact points, so the cloud would keep getting wider and wider. Debris that's blasted upward will head out into space, and debris blasted downward will eventually fall to Earth.

But the timing of the cloud's return in the movie suggests that the cloud destroyed the shuttle, then raced around the Earth in 90 minutes and hit Sandra in the space station a second time — as if the space station was hanging in space, motionless. But of course, if that were true, the debris went past much too slowly.

Please note that the Earth is surrounded by an envelope of debris going in ALL directions, and not usually clustered in a debris cloud like in the movie. The shuttle, the space station, and several satellites have been damaged by tiny flicks of paint and small pieces of metal which strike them with some portion of the combine speeds of the two objects!

Enjoy the three fine videos below about the Kessler syndrome. Near the end of the first one is a brief description of several to plans to remove space junk from orbit. (Thank God . . . )

The other two videos are entirely devoted to such plans.
________________________________

Will space junk end our modern way of life? - The Kessler Syndrome


__________


VASIMR Orbital Sweeper for Space Debris Removal


__________


_______ Space Debris removal mission animation


__________
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Bogmeister]

________________________
_______________________
_____

Gravity may seem to be about what it's like to be in orbit above Earth, and there is that, but it's more about the struggles and travails of an individual (Sandra Bullock).

It's one of those very centered films, very focused, following along with just one character for most of the story. It begins with two astronauts, the other played by George Clooney — who's the professional, experienced astronaut of the piece.

Bullock's character is less of an astronaut and more of a technical associate, this being her first mission in space. So, the story impresses on us the significance of the events after Clooney's character is taken out of the story — Bullock's character is a babe in the woods and she's stuck about 100 miles above the Earth. The goal: finding a way down safely.


____
__________________

The other aspect to all this is the sense of helplessness. In the first act, the astronauts find out about the approaching threat — a satellite has been destroyed and the debris is on its way. But knowing all this ahead of time doesn't really help them much and they fail to avoid the oncoming disaster.

Everything seems to happen in slow motion up there in space, up to a point; then it's on you abruptly and you are probably too slow to escape your own destruction. All perspective is different up there in orbit, much different from the familiar environs of Earth; it's all upside down, topsy-turvy, turned around and off-kilter.

The film offers a series of these dizzying perspectives, throwing us these curves; we just aren't used to it — and certainly Bullock's character isn't either. Even during the moments when she sheds her spacesuit and is inside one of mankind's mechanical floating tombs, there's no gravity and she floats in an otherworldly haze.

_________________
____

All that said, there's also an emptiness to the proceedings.

Sure, the visuals are brilliant and Bullock is an ideal choice as the actress to carry us along and keep us involved. But there's so much of the spectacular show of her constant jeopardy — such as barely catching the right grip on something to prolong her survival — that it outweighs the chances to catch one's breath and drink in her dilemma.

We are awed at the technical brilliance and the visual splendor, but seeing her as a real human being near death happens only during brief periods throughout the film, such as those moments without a spacesuit when she seems most vulnerable.

It's most potent near the end, when she finally begins her descent. That's a little late. The narrative also throws in an overreaching backstory for Bullock's character — a dead daughter. By the end, this bit of old tragedy seems to tell us that even with such depression, she will still endeavor to survive against all odds.

I'm not sure what the moral here is, except that mankind may be the ultimate survivor in the game of life & death. but it's usually an instinct, not this banal moralizing or messaging about what drives a human being — that's just too calculated and rehearsed.



BoG's Score: 8 out of 10


BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

I can't figure out if Bogmeister liked this movie or not. He doesn't praise it a lot, but his critical remarks are a bit cryptic and philosophical.

Me, I just thought it was just a one-trick-pony that would have been better with two or three characters. I know the whole idea was that Sandra was alone and desperate, but I would have enjoyed a team effort to solve the amazing problem of surviving.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)