"Gravity" had comic book physics in a lot of places, but it was still a really good movie that opens with an amazing single shot that goes on for something like 13 minutes. I can cut it a lot of slack on the physics.
Gravity was a good movie. And for a movie set in space, it's pretty realistic...ish. But it's orbital physics are terrible. Just terrible. I mean, most movies don't even try. Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Wars don't deal with orbital physics at all. Gravity tries, and gets it all wrong.
Yes, the movie isn't perfect scientifically, but a) it's extremely entertaining, b) gets people interested and listening to me talking about GR and c) saying Gravity is a better movie (in ref. to science) is imo ridiculous (imo Gravity is a pretentious "sciency" piece of drama set in space, but w/e).
Yeah, Gravity was better, but it did not explore relativity. Its just plain hard to explain relativity, more so to make an actual movie out of it that will appeal to the general public.
While true, Gravity was an incredible spectacle when viewed in IMAX 3D. I would argue seeing it in a normal theatre or at home would be such a lesser experience, it would be as if you were watching a different movie.
The IMAX 3D movie conveyed the black emptiness of space, the splendor of Earth from orbit, the velocity of moving objects, and the inertia of a human body in a way that dazzled the viewer. It was astonishing.
True, the physics was wrong. By not as wrong as other films.
I would humbly submit that Gravity was also not centrally concerned with the parts of orbital mechanics that would make it an utterly boring movie. I continue to fail to see the big distinction here, and why only one of these is described as "cheating."
reply