Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Sci-Fi » General Sci-Fi » Gravity (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Gravity
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I am enough of a geek to have noticed the scientific errors, I could also allow for them for movie purposes, and in that regard I think this ranks with 2001 and other classics.

Thoughts?

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jason Abbadon
Rolls with the punches.
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for Jason Abbadon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to see it still, but the derisive comments from astronauts and Neil Degrasse Tyson seem idiotic in the extreme: why not focus on how the movie might actually get people interested in the space program and science instead of bashing the movie?
For that matter, piss off Dr. Tyson.
You fuck with Pluto, you fuck with everyone associated with the Underworld, it's offshoots, subsidiaries and citizens.
PLUTO IS A PLANET, YOU ASSHAT.

Go piss on Mercury next: see how fast he posions your water with his heavy metal namesake. Motherfucker.

Also, George Clooney is a fine fine actor- anythng (except those Oceans 11 movies or that Batman movie he was in) are very well made.
Revenge of the Killer Tomatos remains a masterpiece of modern cinema.

--------------------
Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering.
-Aeschylus, Agamemnon

Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256

 - posted      Profile for Cartman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1) Tyson didn't demote Pluto, the IAU did

2) unless you have the mental age of a four-year old you should care more about good science being done (Pluto being reclassified now that we know where the fuck to place it astronomically) than the fact someone attached a different label to it

3) Pluto itself couldn't give a shit, only people who feel some twisted connection between it and a Disney cartoon character (i.e. RETARDED MAN-CHILDREN) do

4) read https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-the-critique-of-science-in-film/10151673927570869 before you say anything else

5) Gravity was hit and miss

--------------------
".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO

Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The IAU did not demote Pluto . . . only a small percentage of its members voted on the topic, without consultation of the rest, and based on the discoverer's false claim that Eris was larger than Pluto. Basically, if he couldn't have it accepted as a tenth planet, he didn't want Pluto to be the ninth.

And please don't tell me you think Pluto is named for the dog.

Pluto was named and accepted as a planet in the scientific community without the IAU. Even with the discovery of Kuiper snowball objects like Quaoar or whatever-the-hell, Pluto stands apart in its qualities.

Further, the IAU does not have any legal authority on the matter, and the fact that some engaged minority can slip in a vote in this fashion simply proves that it hasn't the moral authority, either. More than a few astronomers concur:

http://www.space.com/5503-astronomers-argue-pluto-planet.html

Put simply, there are nine planets as far as I am concerned, and Mike Brown can suck it, suck it long, and suck it hard. Given his emotional investment in deleting Pluto (he admits even after evidence showed Eris was smaller that he wishes it was bigger), I admit to dropping to his level there, but it is what he would understand. His find of Eris is little more than a far away dirty snowball with a supremely eccentric orbit well away from the orbit of any other planet, including Pluto.

http://www.universetoday.com/89901/pluto-or-eris-which-is-bigger/

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Further, the definition of a planet having cleared its orbit would not apply to an object like Neptune, which according to some was a Kuiper belt intruder over half a billion years after the formation of the solar system, when the Kuiper belt is thought to have been more massive and closer.

Can anyone really justify having friggin' Neptune not be a planet almost a billion years into the existence of the solar system? If we get sharp eyes or warp drive, can you imagine going to another solar system and seeing a Neptune-type world ploughing through a Kuiper belt and having some asshat say "oh, well, that's not really a planet, because it hasn't cleared its neighborhood"?

Ugh.

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256

 - posted      Profile for Cartman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"...only a small percentage of its members voted on the topic..."

Perhaps the rest felt no need to vote on a topic so obvious it didn't merit any discussion.

"...the IAU does not have any legal authority on the matter..."

Nobody has *legal* authority on *science*. Kinda how that whole enterprise works.

"Pluto stands apart in its qualities..."

You mean like the fact it is HALF METHANE ICE by volume so the thing would melt at Earth's distance from the sun? That's truly planet-esque behavior right there, not like the *dozens of other icy bodies* discovered out there at all. Nope, Pluto sure resembles the four rocky inner worlds a lot more and needs to continue to be grouped with them FOR SCIENCE.

"Put simply, there are nine planets..."

Whatever you say, Picard.

"And please don't tell me you think Pluto is named for the dog."

No.

I do however think all the third-graders and uneducated yokels (but no doubt experts on Greek mythology) who started sending Tyson hatemail after the NYTimes ran its "Pluto not a planet? Only in NY" cover(!)story in 2000 just might have made that connection. And since one typically learns about "the dog" around the same time as "that weird object at the end of the solar system", there is no other reason why most STILL haven't gotten the fuck over its demotion apart from a deeply-rooted mental association between them formed during childhood. Luckily, some of us do manage to grow up.

Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
MinutiaeMan
Living the Geeky Dream
Member # 444

 - posted      Profile for MinutiaeMan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty sure the definition of "cleared its orbit" refers to objects of comparable size. There's nothing the size of Earth that shares Earth's orbital zone.

--------------------
“Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov
Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha

Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MinutiaeMan:
I'm pretty sure the definition of "cleared its orbit" refers to objects of comparable size. There's nothing the size of Earth that shares Earth's orbital zone.

Actually, no, they didn't trouble themselves to define it for the purposes of the definition. There are some precedents for the phrasing but they are hardly agreed-upon standards. Some suggest it only applies to "mature" systems, some say it only applies to clearing planetessimals (lest double planets cease to exist), et cetera, but it is a big mess and not especially scientific.

Unlike their first two criteria (round, orbits the sun), that one is kind of pointless unless you factor in Brown's ego.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cartman:
Perhaps the rest felt no need to vote on a topic so obvious it didn't merit any discussion.

Or perhaps, as in the article I posted, most folks chose to ignore it rather than play Mike Brown's "mine's bigger than yours" ego game.

quote:
"...the IAU does not have any legal authority on the matter..."

Nobody has *legal* authority on *science*. Kinda how that whole enterprise works.

Don't play dense. Unlike some scientific enterprises which have backing from a government or the UN, the IAU is a rather informal thing (as obviated by the fact that they still haven't troubled themselves to adopt a quorum system).

quote:
You mean like the fact it is HALF METHANE ICE by volume so the thing would melt at Earth's distance from the sun? That's truly planet-esque behavior right there,
Actually, yes . . . Neptune's rocky portion is estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of an Earth mass, and at a single AU all that gas and pressured liquid covering it would eventually go bye-bye.

I'm ever so glad you agree.

quote:
"Put simply, there are nine planets..."

Whatever you say, Picard.

Thank you for acknowledging that I am on the right side of the argument, Gul.

quote:
there is no other reason why most STILL haven't gotten the fuck over its demotion apart from a deeply-rooted mental association between them formed during childhood.
I never gave a crap about Disney characters growing up, so sorry to burst your bubble. Perhaps, then, there *are* other reasons than Disney attachment for people to reject a small group's vote.

For reference, I point again to the links provided, such as the first where other astronomers were ignoring the IAU and pondering replacement of it altogether, and the one where a guy who wrote one of the hallmark papers forming the background of "clearing the neighborhood" doesn't think Neptune would be a planet by that criteria, and that Pluto ought to be left in.

I guess those silly astronomers are just butthurt because they think Mickey will be lonely, huh?

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Ginger Beacon
Senior Member
Member # 1585

 - posted      Profile for The Ginger Beacon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Woah!

Thread derailment!!!

Ahem, I think, that despite our difference in opinion, we can all agree a couple of things things:

  1. The IAU had an agenda against Pluto continuing to be a planet and their criteria for defining a planet was clearly designed to exclude Pluto.
  2. They really didn't think much further than that.

That said, since its all so amateurish and technically "unofficial" there is nothing to stop you forming your own organisation, calling Pluto a planet and sticking a "IAU SUX" sign on the wall.


Back not quite on topic, I nearly saw Gravity, but watched Enders Game instead. Regardless of the political hoo-ha about the author, the film is entertaining with good visuals but is dumbed down from the book in a number of ways. This doesn't really hurt the movie too much.

I did see a trailer for Gravity, and on the basis of that if I get the chance will probably see it. I think that both of these are quite splashy pictures that really merit seeing on the big screen to do them justice though, so don't wait for a dodgy download on your mobile, or however it is kids watch films these days.

--------------------
I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.

Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Guardian 2000
Senior Member
Member # 743

 - posted      Profile for Guardian 2000     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gravity deserved 3D IMAX and was well worth the trouble to see it that way.

Better yet, if they had a holodeck . . .

--------------------
G2k's ST v. SW Tech Assessment

Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fabrux
Epic Member
Member # 71

 - posted      Profile for Fabrux     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have yet to see Gravity and I probably won't see it until after it is released on home media for the simple fact that, in today's era of high ticket prices and long runtimes, Gravity's ~1h30 runtime is just not long enough to make it worth my while. YMMV.

--------------------
"I am going out to find myself. If I should get here before I return, please hold me until I get back."

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Nim
The Aardvark asked for a dagger
Member # 205

 - posted      Profile for Nim     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Saw it recently, will definitely go and see again, was very immersed and blown away by the mise-en-scene, the score, and the sublime use of 3D. Also, I enjoyed the performance of both Bullock and Clooney, for the same reasons as was said in the SomethingAwful and HalfInTheBag reviews: the dialogue is extremely efficient, there are no worthless or gratuitous lines, and I just loved the symbolic imagery spread out here and there in the film, it invoked feelings without being hamfisted, since it worked in the scenes by itself as well.

Fabrux: here in Sweden it cost me 19$, I thought it was well worth the price, and one of the very few movies that really benefits from being seen in 3D. Its lean running time spoke only in its favor; there's no endless faffing-about like it would've been if Emmerich and Bay had tried their hand, this way it felt like every scene and segue were very important and you had to stay sharp, no lollygagging. My friend sat glued to her seat, even though she had only had an hour of sleep the night before.

Also, it was very fun and crowd-pleasing to me as a tech head to see the insides of all those different platforms that are worked through. Won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it, but a feast for the eyes, both modern and retro.

Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged
Johnny
Senior Member
Member # 878

 - posted      Profile for Johnny     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've read a few criticisms of Gravity's science, but for once I'm in the "dude, it's not meant to be a documentary" group. The fact that it has the space shuttle being used in the present day (judging from the mission number which is 150+; the last real life mission being 135, I believe) makes it clear from the outset that some artistic license will be used where it serves the story. I think this, and several other "errors" do so.

But as far as entertainment goes, it was absolutely gripping, transportive and fascinating. I'm not sure it'll be inspiring too many kids to become astronauts, as it paints a rather terrifying picture, but it does also capture the beauty of space very well indeed. It's the first movie for a long while where I've actually felt the 3D had a purpose.

--------------------
deviantArt page | Online portfolio

Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
PsyLiam
Hungry for you
Member # 73

 - posted      Profile for PsyLiam     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fabrux:
I have yet to see Gravity and I probably won't see it until after it is released on home media for the simple fact that, in today's era of high ticket prices and long runtimes, Gravity's ~1h30 runtime is just not long enough to make it worth my while. YMMV.

I think that it's a bit dangerous to place the value of a film on how long it is. Since, ooh, probably the first Lord of the Rings film there's been a tendency for films to be overly long because it makes them seem Important and Serious and Worthy Of An Oscar. The art of the editor is in decline.

Are you really saying that if they'd stuck in another 20 minutes of padding you'd have gone and seen it?

--------------------
Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3