Sunday, 17 November 2013

Why Gravity should of been a sci-fi film

My dad works with satellites. Satellites cost a lot of money. I told him about the premise of Alfonso Cuarón's latest film Gravity, and the fact that the Russian's decommission a satellite by shooting a missile at it, causing all the destructive debris that the film is based on. My father just started to shake his head and pull a sort of half smile/wince, as if he was embarrassed at the film's intellectual simplicity. As a man that helps builds satellites, the idea of blowing one up in space when your done with it is as stupid as finishing your dinner and then smashing the plate on your face.

In case your wondering, they decommission satellite's by changing the trajectory of it so that it gets pulled back into the Earth's orbit, gets sucked into the atmosphere where most of burns up on re entry. And no piece of satellite debris as ever hit a human. This blaring mistake is one of many factual inaccuracies in Gravity. The astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson spouted an array of tweets pointing out the films flaws;

"Mysteries of #Gravity: Why Bullock, a medical Doctor, is servicing the Hubble Space Telescope"

"Mysteries of #Gravity: How Hubble (350mi up) ISS (230mi up) & a Chinese Space Station are all in sight lines of one another."

"Mysteries of #Gravity: When Clooney releases Bullock's tether, he drifts away. In zero-G a single tug brings them together."

"Mysteries of #Gravity: Why Bullock's hair, in otherwise convincing zero-G scenes, did not float freely on her head."

Cuarón himself has stated that in order to to explain all the inaccuracies they would of had to of added 30 pages (ie. 30 minutes), and that in the end it would of been "irrelevant" to their story. A film that needs thirty extra minutes in order to explain itself is in serious danger to being too ridiculous to believe. 

I, however, have a simple solution to making all of the films inept science seem even remotely true, and that is to make this thriller a sci-fi-thriller. By that, I mean set it in the future. Even if you set this film at least a year in the future, you can persuade people that this is at least a partly plausible explanation due to circumstances that haven't even happened yet. He wouldn't even of had to include thirty minutes of extra screen time, he would just need a title screen saying: "Space, 2014".

To listen to our review of Gravity, including our views on the director, the actor's, and the 3D, through the player below, or find us on iTunes. Also, don't forget to like and share our new Facebook page, His and Hers Views and Reviews, as the old page is now defunct.


No comments:

Post a Comment