Gravity

In the beginning there are three astronauts outside. Two are tethered but the Clooney character is not; he's darting around with a jet pack instead. Having heard that this movie was very realistic this struck me as strange because NASA doesn't allow it's astronauts to leave the shuttle untethered, right? I know he's supposed to be a hotshot, but no astronaut, no matter how daring, is going to risk being untethered in space. So why would a director do this if he's striving for a sense of realism in order to engage the audience and create greater suspense?

It's not a documentary. It doesn't take place today. The director is following his own muse.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I agree I found that part of the movie really threw me off. It was such a simple thing they could have done that would have made a big difference to me.

It's
a
Movie

It had a fair bit of fuel in it. He lasted a while after the shuttle was wrecked. He would have been perfectly comfortable up until that point.

It's a movie. Chris Hadfield I think criticized it for not being very accurate, though. Sandra Bullock is never seen wearing diapers either, and she should have.

What bothered me about Gravity is that it never really shows how silent space is. There's either pointless dialogue, Sandra Bullock breathing heavily, or a score that doesn't really go with the scenes, though I really liked the music during the scene with the debris falling.

Bullock was not wearing diapers when she should have been during this film!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! That's horrendous, how could they leave that vital part out of the film, that's just spoilt the whole film for me now. I spit on Gravity, how dare it win so many Oscars!

I'm with Mark on "It doesn't take place today." I assumed the whole time it was set in the near future.

I did not. However, I did suspend belief while watching the movie, which doesn't mean completely disregarding everything, but rather means that I try not to nitpick.

I always go by did I notice it while watching the film? If I did, then either it's the fault of the film or I'm not in the right mood for it. If I only notice something while thinking about it afterwards, no matter how annoying or stupid it becomes, the film still did its job because I didn't notice at the time.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

The astronauts go outside the ship in 2001 without tethers. Kubrick was obviously an idiot. No, honeykid, that's not an invitation.

But 2001 is awesome

Some of you here don't understand the concept of 'Science-Fiction'.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

Parts of the film are 'Science-Fiction'. The fact that the astronauts traveled the massive distances that they did using suit-thrusters is the fiction I'm talking about. That and the fact they survived the initial impact as well. If not hard 'Science-Fiction', then it's at least 'Speculative-Fictionish'.

Really? Because you've opened that door pretty wide.

We know it's a movie. And while it didn't ruin it at all for me, it did take me a bit out of buying into it because I found it really goofy that Clooney is flying around disconnected from the shuttle. I'd heard some felt Clooney's character wasn't real, a ghost or something, but because the scene where he enters the escape pod is so obviously of Bullock's mind I began to think maybe some thought his character was in Bullock's imagination the entire time because of the absolutely ridiculous jet pack introductory scene. No idea why the director thought this was a good idea.

A good rule of thumb.

I need to check this out soon.

__________________

It's not completely realistic. But compared to other scifi, it make tremendous inroads showing that more realism can make for better drama.

It's not sci-fi though, is it?