Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bullock, then Clooney

It is hard not to notice that Cloneey is listed before Bullock, also it is poster of him chosen for the article. No hard feelings, but it is not right. He is def. a supporting role, and Bullock is the lead, like really LEAD. He appears in the movie for the first 30 minutes, while she is present all the time, esp. in the last 60 minutes, being totally alone. She will also be campaigned for Oscar for the Best Actress, while Clooney goes to Supporting category. It is just a bit strange, you know. Sorry for my bad English, I am not native. --109.92.230.143 (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's simply the most recent poster, and there will probably be a new poster released soon so I shouldn't worry about it. Film Fan 15:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody says you should worry, but just that the poster is not really appropriate or credible. Btw, the latest poster is actually this one: http://www.flicksandbits.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Sandra-Bullock-Dr.-Ryan-Stone-Gravity.jpg --109.92.230.143 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You really should have just uploaded it yourself instead of talking about it. Done. Film Fan 20:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know how. Thank you! --178.222.114.192 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Bullock and Clooney

Someone moved Clooney before Bullock in the article, and I reverted the move because the sources used have treated the film's female role as the starring role. The article itself indicates that Clooney has a supporting role. While the synopsis suggests both characters struggling to survive, I suspect that the female character will last longer in the film. So Bullock ought to come before Clooney. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Clooney will be in the movie for the first 30 minutes. Then we will have only Sandy on the screen. I agree that she should be before him, because she's in the main role. --BetteDavis4ever (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What you write is not in the Synopsis section, nor can I find any sources that state this via Google. The Synopsis section does state "no communications with Earth", so just staring at Bullock for an hour then? Is there more information about the plot anywhere? --82.170.113.123 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This sort of discussion can sometimes get very nitpicky, since the question of which actor has a more important role is often subject to opinion. That's why we usually just follow the official credits. The trailer lists Bullock ahead of Clooney, so we should do the same. —Flax5 15:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If the plot (and significance of each role therefore) is not yet fully clear why not list actors alphabetically than ?194.39.218.10 (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the movie in early release. Clooney is out of the movie after the first 1/3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBone12355 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete Plot Section

Came here to find out more about this movie, including some of the scientific inaccuracies and details later in the story which might make a difference in the "is it science fiction or not?" debate, but the plot reads like the summary on the back of a DVD case. I come to Wikipedia for movie summaries when I don't care about spoilers and from my understanding articles about a movie are supposed to describe the movie as a whole, not serve as a teaser. 69.154.76.134 (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw the movie in an early release in September 2013, and i have filled in the plot section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.153.66 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks

Even the rudimentary synopsis provided by this article saved me from wanting to see this movie. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Too bad. It's a terrific piece of movie making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBone12355 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Why was the picture changed?

The picture used before of the film's poster was perfect for the article. Why was it changed? Personal opinion time: I think the poster with both Clooney and Bullock should be used rather than using a poster featuring only one of the main actors. --Matt723star (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And if a poster is used where it only features one of the two then it should be the poster that was originally used, the one featuring Bullock, as she is the focal point of the film and has a bigger role than Clooney's character. 71.104.231.7 (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be fine if there was a poster of two of them, but that one doesn't exist. Poster with Sandra Bullock can be seen all across the world, esp. here in Europe, due to huge box office potential. Seeing a poster of Clooney in the article is simply not normal and fair. He's role lasts for like 20 minutes, and Bullock is there all the time, she is carrying the movie all by herself. I see this act as a glimpse of machoism, and it is just not fair. Whoever does this picture changing, he/she should stop. --BetteDavis4ever (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone please change the poster back to the one featuring Sandra Bullock, as she is the main star of the film and her poster is the one most used to promote the film. So, if someone can please change the image to the Sandra Bullock poster, it would fit the article much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 55eo55 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What about this one? http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/gravity-poster.jpg --Matt723star (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It is good. But for some reason, the one with Sandra is better. I am not big fan of the lady, but I must say she deserved it. Gravity is all about her. I've never in my life seen a movie pulled out by one single person, physically, emotionally and financially. And it is the promotional poster in cinemas, so... --BetteDavis4ever (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The significant advantage of the poster linked by Matt723star is that it is neutral and avoids personal emotional preferences for one actor over another. And it's not true that the Bullock poster is universally "the promotional poster in cinemas"; all three of the theaters showing this in my city are using the neutral poster, at least on their web sites. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The significant disadvantage of the Matt723star poster is that it avoids highlighting the film's main lead: Sandra Bullock. The current one is much better at showing you which actor(s) the film's about. In a neutral, objective fashion. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WALL-E

Under Themes... the fire extinguisher may more have been an homage to the film DESTINATION MOON (1950). Even though it was an oxygen bottle there, but a much earlier reference. aajacksoniv (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Bullock and Clooney - The only actors?

Don't we also see Paul Sharma? Or at least someone else in an astronaut suit? Bluerules (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There's also whomever the two bodies in the shuttle are modelled after (presumably the two who provided voices for the shuttle pilot and arm commander)... and Ed Harris as Mission Control Capcom, and whomever is on the CB radio and the baby, and the ISS Commander (Did we here Chinese Mission Control?) -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No, B & C are the only two credited actors (not including voice). CapnZapp (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

They're the only actors not given voice attributes, but Sharma is seen on-screen before he gets killed. His face is obscured, but he is seen. Bluerules (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Is he? It was likely just a CGI model. — Reatlas (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sharma is credited as voice, therefore it is reasonable to think it wasn't the actor's face we saw, only an image in his likeness. But any discussion "did we see Sharma or only CGI?" misses the point: the important fact is what the credits say. Sharma is credited as voice, therefore we can and should assume he isn't in the movie in any other capacity. That is how the article can claim "a movie with only two actors in it". CapnZapp (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Stone committing "painless" suicide

The article stated decompression, but that would hardly be painless, right?

She denies herself oxygen, that's for sure. Are those valves real, and if so, what are they used for? CapnZapp (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Those valves are real, in that position in the Soyuz entry module cockpit.aajacksoniv (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

...and if so, what are they used for? :) In real life, I mean. In the movie, it appears as if the capsule has the ability to lower the oxygen level rather rapidly (but without just venting the atmosphere into space - we see no hints of decompression - perhaps the atmosphere is sucked into a tank and exchanged for CO2? But what real life use would such a system be useful for - combating fires?). Inquiring minds (and editors writing plot summaries ;) wish to know! Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Can't find a Soyuz manual on the WEB , right now, (there might be a Russian one), but it's a good question. Now, all spacecraft have redundant systems , especially if an automatic one can fail, so I figure the values are there for that. I am sure one can do an EVA from a Soyuz stack, tho it is probably done through the Orbit Module. It is noticeable in the film Stone is on an umbilical, because I don't think there are regular self contained EVA suits in the Soyuz, tho I am not 100% sure of that. One may be able to zero the environmental system before opening a hatch, meaning you don the suit, zero the oxygen, and vent the CO2. Before opening the hatch. So having control of the O2 level in the descent module is very likely possible. It was an interesting touch, in the film, that when she was outside ejecting the chute, with the hatch open the cockpit should have gotten cold. Indeed when the scene cuts back to her after she re-pressurized the cockpit there is frost on her breath.aajacksoniv (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe she's slowly venting the atmosphere into space? I would think that death by slow decompression would be about as painless as shutting of the oxygen. For example, in the Helios Airways Flight 522 accident, the airplane never properly pressurizes, but all the passengers and almost the whole crew fall unconscious without realizing what is happening. — Reatlas (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I could discuss this interesting theory with you ("do you think depressurization at 20000 ft and out in space can be compared?") but to tell the truth I'd rather find out if these Soyuz valves really replace the atmosphere with vacuum or if they more directly affect the oxygen level somehow. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Accuracy

First of all, I loved the movie, and the fact that it is not scientifically accurate does not have any impact on that.

If you are here, you have surely read the plot in the article, but be warned anyway that there are spoilers in the following.

I believe another point where the film is not accurate, beyond the ones already noted in the article, is when Bullock and Clooney reach the Russian station. Bullock is hanging by a foot to the parachute straps, and grabs Clooney by the broken strap that was joining them. At that stage, both are stationary with respect to the station, so Clooney is not "pulling her away" in any sense. It is a difficulty situation for sure, but Clooney' sacrifice appears a bit rushed to me, and when Clooney disengages the strap, there's no reason why he should "fall out" in space. Comments welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Carter (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Andreas Carter (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Just saw the movie. My impression was that both Clooney and Bullock still have momentum away from the station. The rope is slowing them down, but their motion is unravelling the rope. The long shots show that they are not stationary with respect to the station. 24.114.228.117 (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Might well be. Will try and take a second look at the scene. Andreas Carter (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

More feasible is that it was more due to the centrifugal force from ISS spinning in the plane of the orbit (thus not so obvious as if it was spinning in the plane toward the earth). With their relatively large distance to the center of rotation, the force could indeed be strong enough to manifest/explain why Kowalski was pooling her that much. So whoever yet to (re)watch -- check if that was not the case. --Yarikoptic (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I'll probably see it again so I ca see. It was definitely a suspension of belief moment for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoi (talk • contribs) 22:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent guess. I should definitely watch the film once more. Andreas Carter (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This was my interpretation as well. There are two forces at work from the rope - the centripetal force of elasticity, drawing them back toward the station; and the friction of the rope around Bullock's leg, keeping them from disconnecting. The mass of Clooney+Bullock rotating around the station creates a large momentum, larger than the force of friction from the rope, so it would have come unwound and released them. Bullock alone was light enough that the friction 'won', so the rope stayed around her leg long enough for the rope's elasticity to draw her back to the station. 24.130.148.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

As I understood it while watching the movie: even if they are stationary with respect to the station, they have no way to approach it. Stone was stopped by the strap, but cannot use it to climb back, because that would require movements that the space suit does not allow. They are in a deadlock situation. When Kowalski pushes himself away from Stone, the law of momentum conservation dictates that Stone commences in the opposite direction, and he floats away. Of course, that's not what they explicitly say, but that's what helped me maintain my suspension of disbelief. --93.220.112.217 (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent interpretation, thanks! One could probably argue that if Stone's strap connection is solid enough, Kowalski could slowly "climb back" towards the station, and then help her back to it. Also, I am not sure that he "pushes himself away", but as I said, I should see the scene once again. Anyway, I loved the film, and even if it is not accurate here, it does not really matter. Andreas Carter (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Cont'd below: #Scientific Accuracy: Kowalski letting go. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion to those of you who reguluarly edit this: Be really careful with this section. "Experts" will add trivial piece after trivial piece until the section grows out of control. Look at the style sheets and best practices for other film articles. Keep any list VERY small - 1 or 2 major examples are all you need otherwise it's going to turn into a forum for people to try to prove how smart they are. Lepeu1999 (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The bullet point beginning with "During re-entry, the landing module should enter the atmosphere at a very precise angle." should be struck from the list of scientific inaccuracies. Soyuz and Shenzhou capsules are designed to passively reorient and stabilize during reentry. For example, Soyuz 5 reentered backwards with its service module still attached. It righted itself in time to survive reentry after the service module burned through and broke free.(2600:1012:B003:10D7:B5D0:4017:21E4:F77A (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC))

I think it's referring to the reentry angle, not the angle of attack. However, removed anyway because it's unsourced. — Reatlas (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a preferred entry angle for the Soyuz and Shenzhou, but the former comment is true, even if the 'angle of attack' is off , as noted these capsules will self-correct to the right entry attitude, any tweaking is done by attitudes jets on the Soyuz entry module. It was only the Apollo command module , when returning from the moon that had a 'entry corridor', entry from a lunar trajectory is different than entry from low earth circular orbit.aajacksoniv (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Gravity - Crew

Please read American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement before edit warring over "the rest of the crew is/are dead" at Gravity (film).

The page was started in AE, and thus "the crew is" should be used by this particular article, but that should not be interpreted to signal that "the crew are" is wrong.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not an edit war. A single change like that should be taken as a good faith intention to improve the article. Revert by all means as per discussion, but do not assume that such a single change is an intention to edit war over the topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the film considered British ? (see British Film Council [1]., Evening Standard [2] & Telegraph India [3]). Therefore British English ? I see a long running Wikipedia argument about the film's nationality coming :) ... The Yeti (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RETAIN for the pertinent policy regarding your questions. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Genre

Since "science fiction thriller" is being repeatedly restored, I'd say that regardless of general reliability of sources, their claim of "science fiction thriller" is inaccurate: the film is not a science fiction since the plot is set in our times and there are no futuristic gadgets and the film is hardly a thriller, which usually involves either crime or supernatural tropes or both (more specifically, it doesn't deploy some external tropes like serial killer or unknown force to thrill the audience). An accurate genre is space drama, which is sourced, but is being removed over and over. Brandmeister^talk 19:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This issue seems somewhat related to the discussion above - perhaps WP:CONSENSUS may be in order? My Genre preference atm is the current original text (ie, "science fiction thriller") same as Box Office Mojo and numerous other refs as described above - and here => (Variety, Box Office Mojo, ReelViews, Rotten Tomatoes, New York Times, Roger Ebert Reviews, USA Today, Time Magazine, Bloomberg, Business Week) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think it's the same genre as Marooned (film) and Countdown (1968 film) (and SpaceCamp) -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Brief Followup - according to IMDB: "Countdown" (1968) is a "science fiction thriller"; "Marooned" (1969) and "SpaceCamp" (1986) are "science fiction" films - according to RottenTomatoes: "Marooned" (1969) is a "science fiction thriller" as well - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Brandmeister, for the same reasons that he gave, that this film doesn't correctly fit the definitions of "science fiction". Even though it is set in space it is really correct to call it a drama. I am not going to change it myself, as I doubt that this would last long, but I would encourage other editors to rethink how it is described in the article and, I hope, reach a consenus to change it from "science fiction" because it simply isn't regardless of how often the media mistakenly describes it as such. Afterwriting (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that eventually disagreements will eventuate in the removal of any mention of genre within this article in the future, simply calling it a "film", the way it is with Marooned, and the way it eventually happened with the edit warring of A Clockwork Orange (film) article, although there has been no reversion of its genre since 6 October, so maybe the issue is settled.

The problem is that science fiction is a very broad genre with many sub genres. Calling it a space drama, or even a film about space travel in an alternative setting, it still comes under the genre of "science fiction", even by Wikipedia's own definition. If the drama or thriller took place on Earth (still wearing spacesuits, mind) it would be more difficult to classify. If there is a lack of consensus that space travel technology or that a space drama/thriller is insufficient to warrant the film's inclusion under science fiction then these arguments need to be taken to the talk page of that article, and a new consensus of definition needs to be addressed. Feel free to do that, otherwise arguments here could be regarded as POV pushing and cherrypicking, not to mention original research. It might be better simply to call it a "film" until consensus is reached. -- Jodon | Talk 16:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone here could bring up an aspect of the film that conflicts with existing Definitions of science fiction? -- Jodon | Talk 16:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think of this film as science fiction. Britannica says:

"science fiction
form of fiction that developed in the 20th century and deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals. The term is more generally used to refer to any literary fantasy that includes a scientific factor as an essential orienting component."

This film fails the criterion laid out in the first line of the definition.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 18:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Science fiction is not required to fulfil every aspect of its definition ALL the time, there need only be one aspect to fulfil the criteria, and if you check in a section further up, Brittanica's definition has not gained consensus. Once again I ask if someone here could bring up an aspect of the film that conflicts with existing Definitions of science fiction. -- Jodon | Talk 18:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the approaches of analysis of film genre is structuralism. In order to implement this approach, we must seek binary opposition in the movie's plot, especially - defining the nature of the dramatic conflicts in the film (with whom the protagonist struggles? What obstacles stand in his way? What choices must he take?). In science fiction films, conflicts are often between man and machine, or between man and technology. Therefore, it seems that "Gravity" should indeed be classifid as a sci-fi genre film. בארת (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Continued further down (again). -- Jodon | Talk 17:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Physics Accuracy

The preview alone has garnered physics skepticism: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/a-quick-look-at-the-physics-in-the-gravity-trailer/

With more people now seeing the full release, shouldn't there be more information available for making a section explaining the physics fail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.211.226 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If there's enough complainants from prominent sources regarding the film's accuracy than we can probably add something to the article.--Craigboy (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The point about communications satellites all being in geostationary orbit is not correct, there are plenty of low altitude communications satellites such as the Iridium network. I haven't seen the movie or the criticism to put this in whatever context it may be in but that statement is not right on its face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.41.131 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the cord, my impression was that they are to some extent swinging on it and it's the centripetal acceleration which is pulling George Clooney away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.50.7 (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Centripetal acceleration is toward the center of the arc; it is not pulling Kowalsky away (from Stone and the Space Station). Centripetal force is what's perpetually changing Stone's & Kowalsky's velocity, so that they travel that circular arc rather than flinging off on a tangential line. The jeopardy in that scene is owed to the static friction between Stone's leg and the parachute chord; or rather, it's owed to there not being quite enough static friction, thus her leg keeps slipping. When Kowalsky unhooks his tether, he's no longer under any centripetal force. He flings off tangentially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: More details on scientific i...

Posting new section in order to close feedback item: 76.251.80.46 posted this comment on 13 November 2013 (view all feedback).

More details on scientific inaccuracies would be neat.

Even more details? I would think the section is large as is? Anything specific you want mentioned? CapnZapp (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: A photo of the director, oth...

2601:A:1F00:657:A0BC:B96D:C523:2C7F posted this comment on 9 November 2013 (view all feedback).

A photo of the director, other than that, I thought it was very informative.

Isn't a link to the director's page enough? (I think pictures should go there)

CapnZapp (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's acceptable to have visual aids in an article. The Featured Article Barton Fink is a good example of this. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "I think pictures of Cuaron should go there (=his page)". I am in no way opposed to "visual aids" in general :-) I'm not even opposed to a pic of Cuaron (here=gravity page), only I feel it isn't the highest priority for more pictures on the page. CapnZapp (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Kessler syndrome, time cycle and accuracy

Clooney estimates that the debris will arrive every 90 minutes and he is shown to be correct.

I am skeptical about a 90 minutes cycle. I gather the Kessler syndrome is a chain reaction caused by debris causing further release of debris following impact with satellites. Although the kinetic energy of the initial impact may have been directional I would have thought that the spreading reaction would generally propagate in all directions so that near completion of the reaction, the debris are spreading in all directions at varying velocities causing a spreading cloud. The perimeters of the cloud would eventually touch and overlap (as they encircled the Earth) so that there would be no particular regular cycle.

Does the above sound more plausible than the scenario shown in the film? 194.176.105.153 (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Since Wikipedia isn't about original research, what you need to do is find a reliable source discussing this theory, preferably in conjunction with the movie. (Go have a look at any one of the existing items of "scientific inaccuracies" in the article: you should find that they all are originally from a reference; I mean they all originate in a source, rather than from discussion here on the talk page). Good luck and best regards! CapnZapp (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

How long does it take to change in or out of a spacesuit?

I was under the impression it takes over an hour for an astronaut in space to change and that this also requires the assistance of two colleagues who are not wearing spacesuits. In the film if seemed very easy for Bullock to get changed, was this realistic? 194.176.105.153 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Per http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/spacesuits/facts/facts-index.html:

"Putting on a spacesuit takes 45 minutes, including the time it takes to put on the special undergarments that help keep astronauts cool." I haven't counted if events in the movie would allow for a lengthy period of time each time Sandra Bullock needs to get in, or out of, her spacesuit; even considering that the time required would be less than 45 minutes since she isn't wearing much of the undergarments real astronauts wear (as already discussed by the article), and also that she's under pressure and probably does things a bit faster than normal. If you can find a source discussing the movie that mentions this fact specifically, then go ahead and add it! Best, CapnZapp (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would venture that this level of detail falls under the suspension of belief, where scientific accuracy would be sacrificed for pacing. Much in the same way the whole spacesuit issue is glossed over in (for example) SpaceCamp, and that the airship in A View to a Kill can take up to 24 hours to inflate correctly - but the film manages it in less than a minute. To do it correctly would be (excuse the pun) correct, but also tedious for the viewer, or impractical to the film plot. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Filming

Point 1: The word "cutaway" is imprecise, colloquial and misused here. Cutaway from what to what, then back to what? Cutaway implies leaving one shot to see something briefly then back to the original shot. I think this editor meant to use the term "cuts," meaning the number of distinct picture edits. Perhaps it's more direct to say "shots," as in "this is a movie with very few of them compared to most films." There is an area of film studies research (David Bordwell and others) that deals with ASL, or Average Shot Length. Movies with low ASL's usually means they have more shots.

Point 2: All of this begs the question of a source for this number.

"significantly lower than most films of this length" - does this refer to the number of shots or the average shot length? CapnZapp (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Just checked source, amended accordingly. Awien (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: This article should contain ...

Ddas posted this comment on 21 October 2013 (view all feedback).

This article should contain more photos from the motion picture. There are quite a lot of fantastic visuals of space in the movie.

Any thoughts?

Copyright. Manytexts (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot duration

Article states (at the end of plot synopsis) that the film's action is in real time and the duration of the plot is the duration of the film. This can't be true. The space debis orbits every ninety minutes and does so twice during the ninety minute film with significant amounts of action both before and after. Could this statement be clarified? Peaky76 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That statement was added 22:09, 24 November 2013 and removed again 03:42, 25 November 2013. CapnZapp (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

One source that mentions this, flickfilosopher, [[4]] phrases it "the film zips through its 90-minute runtime, and takes place almost in real time", which is my impression too. Travel time between the space stations and the time to get in and out of space suits have definitely been speeded up, and the second encounter with the debris field comes less than ninety actual minutes after the first, but there's a real case to be made for "almost real time". Definitely close enough to satisfy the classical dramatic unity of time (not to mention unity of action, and I would argue unity of place as well), and in my opinion probably worth mentioning. Awien (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: How did they create/simulate...

98.71.199.221 posted this comment on 21 November 2013 (view all feedback).

How did they create/simulate/ zero gravity for the real feeling of their being in zero gravity?

Quote from the "Filming" section of the article: "Most of Bullock's shots were done with her inside of a giant mechanical rig.[31] Getting into the rig took a significant amount of time, so Bullock opted to stay in it for up to 10 hours a day, communicating with others only through a headset." CapnZapp (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Huge amounts are also CGI, blended with real facial shots. Awien (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Themes

Orange Suede Sofa removed a sentence about homages to other space films as being synthesis since "none of those sources say anything about any of these things being an "homage"". I reverted this deletion and justify it below with the quote from the article and the line in the current article. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Numerous articles reference the Ed Harris connection
• "Stone goes floating about in nothing but her underwear, it's impossible not to think of Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in Alien." [5] --> "evokes Sigorney Weaver's vulnerable Ripley from Alien"
• "Gravity floats on the shoulders of the Pixar giants... [especially] "WALL-E," with its mysteriously somber opening sequence (and with its comic use of a fire extinguisher, which is put to very different use in "Gravity")" [6] --> "the extravehicular use of a fire extinguisher from WALL-E"

My objection is to the characterization of all of this as homage; in other words, the implication that these connections with earlier works were the intent of the creator. There is no source that indicates that Cuarón intended to make these connections. I personally think the Ed Harris thing is likely but there is no proof. The others are extremely tenuous and opinions of individual reviewers only. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen an argument which successfully backs up the claim of homage. Assuming no such argument is forthcoming soon, I'll remove the claim. Observations of casual connections are one thing, claims of homage are another. Red Planet also features a fire-extinguisher-in-space scene; does that mean that that film is also the subject of Cuarón's attention? Of course not; one reviewer's observation doesn't meet the due weight bar. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no reliable sources making the connection between Red Planet and Gravity nor are there sources disputing the connection between WALL-E and Gravity as a fringe or minority viewpoint. Are other reviewer's statements also unduly weighted simply by their inclusion? While construction of the sentence could be better, it's clear that reviewers found the Ed Harris connection to be a clear homage while the other two evoked images from classic sci-fi/space films even if they were not homages. The point is that, in the absence of a director's commentary, we are enumerating thematic elements identified by reviewers that are found in other movies. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of director's commentary, I suggest we say nothing. Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"nor are there sources disputing the connection between WALL-E and Gravity as a fringe or minority viewpoint" I am sorry but you have it backwards - we do not include everything except things specifically disputed by sources. Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the Ed Harris text, since that is widely reported. To combat cruft, I oppose the inclusion of the others (including Wall-E and Ripley) unless they can be sourced by way more independent sources (on par with the Ed Harris one). Good points btw, Orange Suede Sofa. CapnZapp (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, we should only include themes referenced by "way more independent" sources and the entire section should be gutted to the movie being a survival story set in space that omits some notable thematic elements mentioned by some but not all reviewers. If that's the consensus so be it, but it seems like an overly strong interpretation of WP:V and ultimately a disservice to the reader. Thematic interpretations are necessarily subjective and I've enumerated some of the notable themes identified by film critics. If the bar is to be "only themes identified by multiple critics and/or the film director merit inclusion" I think that's an unreasonable criterion. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And to wikiawyer the point, WP:MOSFILM says of theme sections:

"Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director. Inclusion of a treatment of a film's themes – well-sourced and cited to avoid original research – is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced"

I don't understand the opposition to including themes mentioned by critics in notable publications. If or when the section becomes problematic in having too much thematic material, we should certainly discuss how to organize or summarize such content, but it's not clear to me that we've reached the point that we need to be removing material. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Madcoverboy. First off, I was stating my personal opinion, so you do not need to bring any wiki lawyers :-) Secondly, Orange Suede Sofa's point was that the section isn't merely identifying themes - it claims the director is paying homage. There's a difference (see above). Third, of the three examples I personally only think the first one qualifies as "unifying or dominant ideas and motifs". Much like the fact Cuarón chose well-known A-listers and how that overcame the difficulty of relating to the characters when all you see is a face in a spacesuit; the familiarity of Harris' voice calms the audience even subconsciously. Stuff like that (and please don't get worked up because I'm not providing refs here and now) tell me at least the Ed Harris bit is significant in a way the others aren't. The volume of sources mentioning Ed Harris is not by itself a good reason to include that bit at the expense of the others, but having more and varied thoughts does make for a stronger, more full-bodied, argument. In comparison, those other mentions (Wall-E and Ripley) are to me just spurious data points - nothing more than a single reviewer making a semi-random mental connection between A and B. As for the Ripley comparison; I don't see Stone as anything like Ripley. Seeing two female heroes in briefs do not a theme make. Here it is to me much more likely because of Cuarón's stated "rebirth" motif. Stone isn't so much "vulnerable" as she's transforming (from dead to alive). As for Wall-E, I recollect no common theme regarding the fire extinguisher - and the source itself says it was used differently in that movie. Right now, our text only says, in effect, "that scene reminds me of Wall-E". But in what way is that relevant to Gravity? But I am not telling you all this to shut you up - I'm trying to explain where I stand in order for you (and everyone else) to better convince me you're right and that your point is a good one! :-) What I would specifically appreciate is another angle illuminating either the Ripley or the Wall-E "theme"; a source approaching the same comparison but not from an identical direction. Hope that helps you appreciate my personal stance. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I condensed the paragraph and moved it from Themes to Critical reception. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Soyuz side hatch

Noticed the new bit:

• There is no side hatch on Crew Compartment Module (Reentry Module) on Soyuz and Shenzhou spacecraft as shown in the movie.

Googling "Soyuz doesn't have a side hatch" immediately came up with:

Some people complained that the side hatch on the Soyuz orbital module doesn't exist on flight Soyuz vehicles, but only on simulators.

Solution: These people are wrong. The extra simulator hatch is on the descent module. The hatch on the orbital module is there as depicted in the movie, and is used to get in and out of Soyuz on the ground.

http://planet4589.org/space/jsr/gravity.html

I'm no expert, and I have no way of knowing what's true and false, but I suggest any such claim is kept out of the article unless sourced properly. CapnZapp (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Soyuz (and Shenzhou) spacecraft consists of three main parts:

- Service Module

- Crew Compartment Module (also known as Reentry Module, or Descent Module)

- Orbital Module (also known as Living and Habitation Module)

-

- Service module contains support devices, and is irrelevant in this case.

- Orbital Module contains docking mechanism and docking hatch, side hatch used to get in and out to Soyuz spacecraft, and tunnel between Orbital Module and Crew Compartment Module. Please note: On launch pad, crew enters Soyuz through Orbital Module`s side hatch and then trough tunnel to Crew Compartment Module (Reentry Module). Crew exits Crew Compartment Module (Descent Module) via upper hatch, after landing.

- Crew Compartment Module contains upper hatch only which encloses module from tunnel to Orbital Module. There is no side hatch on Crew Compartment Module (Reentry Module) through which Kovalski`s illusion entered Soyuz in the movie, and through which Stone exited to Tiangong space station, and no side hatch through Stone exited Shenzhou (as clone of Soyuz) after water landing. Hovever, there is correctly shown Orbital Module hatch, through which Stone exited Soyuz for EVA when going to disconnect Soyuz parachute cables.

http://www.spaceref.com/iss/spacecraft/soyuz.tm.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxv_oP5FK-I

Okay, so that was a bit of a mind-bender. First I rejazzed this section. Then, after looking it up, it appears you have a valid point. I have tried to write a concise passage summarizing the inaccuracy:

There is no side hatch on the Soyuz/Shenzhou Reentry Module, except on simulator models. The Orbital Module is correctly depicted to have one when Stone needs to make a space walk to disconnect her capsule's parachute cables, but that module has been detached both when Stone exits the Soyuz to reach the Tiangong space station and when she escapes the smoke-filled Shenzhou after the finale's water landing.

What do y'all think? Does this correctly summarize your stance, 15.203.169.125? (I did remove the third reference - Kowalski's (re)entry - since I fear no matter how a ghost enters a capsule, we will have a hard time judging its scientific merits... Just joking :-)

As soon as a good source mentioning this can be found (not just a reference to the Soyuz construction, but a source actually discussing and pointing out it in conjunction with the movie) we can add it to the article. Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Kessler syndrome

I took out the following piece:

"The catastrophic event depicted in the movie, called the Kessler Syndrome, is an actual threat and preventing this scenario from happening is one of the major concerns in today's space operations. However, in Gravity, it is the Russians who trigger the catastrophe by shooting one of their own satellites as a test target for one of their anti-satellite weapons. It has to be noted, for the sake of historic accuracy, that the United States did exactly this, as soon as 1985, shooting down P78-1 during the trials of the ASM-135 ASAT air-space missile. The same happened again in 2008 with the shooting of a modified SM-3 missile at the USA-193 satellite ; the operation happened under cover of "tackling the threat of space debris reentry", in an attempt to evade international criticism for polluting space. China also conducted a test of its own weapons system on one of their own satellites in the beginning of 2007. All of those events have created huge cloud debris that may very well, in the future, create catastrophic events in colliding with other spacecraft, possibly triggering a Kessler Syndrome cascade collision."

Why?

• I personally feel the information would be much more relevant to the Kessler Syndrome page. Perhaps we can look over how we link to that article?
• The language isn't clear, but I detect a whiff of "In the movie the Russians are blamed, but in real life fingers should be pointed at the Americans". Which is an agenda thas has no place here, regardless of its veracity.
• Lots of text for a small payoff: yes, the Kessler scenario isn't completely fiction. Didn't we say this already?

What do you think? Is the above - in whole or part - relevant for the movie? CapnZapp (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In haste:essentially agree with CapZ; long, tmi, bias . . . . Mention for sure, but briefly and on-topic. Awien (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Like—ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Mention for sure, but briefly and on-topic, the Plot section does say:

...which has caused a chain reaction forming a cloud of space debris

...with "chain reaction" being a piped link directly to the Kessler Syndrome article. Also, the link is repeated in the See Also section. Myself, I would say that about covers "Mention for sure, but briefly and on-topic". Thoughts? CapnZapp (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as Gravity is concerned, I agree that this addition is off-topic, and that what the article already has in the plot section is all that's needed. I would however suggest a tweak to the wording, changing it to "Mission Control in Houston warns the team that a Russian missile strike on a defunct satellite has caused a chain reaction forming a cloud of space debris".

As for merging the material into the Kessler Syndrome article, you're probably right there too, but I don't have time to look at that properly.

Hope this helps. Awien (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's okay , tho kind of nit, since almost all the physics in the film happens on a time scale too short compared to reality.

I do think the term "chain reaction" is kind of weak, since it is implied that it is a 'cascading collisional event'. Apparently the ::Kessler Syndrome was the motivation, the term is never used in the film. 99.17.8.53 aajacksoniv (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, aajacksoniv, what you would like to see is something like "Mission Control in Houston warns the team that a Russian missile strike on a defunct satellite has caused a cascading collisional event forming a cloud of space debris". Is that right? As for the time scale, if you feel it's sufficiently notable an inaccuracy that it needs to be mentioned, that would be something to add to the scientific accuracy section itself. Awien (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I would not change anything, the wording suffices. I can't remember what precisely the dialog in the film is, tho, there was something like 'a Russian ASAT test gone wrong' or something like that. Jonás Cuarón says explicitly in an interview, maybe there is one where Alfonso says it too, that the screenplay started with the concept of the Kessler Syndrome. but it's a detail I am not sure worth mentioning.aajacksoniv (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

tether - strap

In my view there is no reason to change one for the other. Could it be a US/UK English thing? CapnZapp (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Souyz damaged?

By my recollection, the reason why Stone can't get the Soyuz to dock with Tiangong isn't explicitly mentioned in the movie? (That is, why does she have to fire landing rockets to get it moving. It's out of fuel, yes, but WHY is it out of fuel. I can't remember the reason if given) CapnZapp (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

EVA in Sokhol spacesuite

Stone uses Russian Sokhol spacesuite to perform an EVA from Soyuz. This spacesuite is not designed for spacewalks, it is used during launch and landing to save the crew in case of depressurization. By the way, if she found a way somehow to trigger soft landing retro-rockets, she sure could detach the parachute from inside the Soyuz, like it's done after landing to prevent capsule dragging by the wind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.139.204.35 (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Perhaps you could enter in r...

87.113.82.174 posted this comment on 12 January 2014 (view all feedback).

Perhaps you could enter in ratings from different organisations?

What "organisations" do you have in mind? CapnZapp (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Addition to scientific accuracy

Brian T Arthur, I noticed that you have been trying to add content to the "Scientific accuracy" section, and DVdm has been reverting your addition. We can use this talk page to discuss the content, and I'll try to explain why the reverts are happening. Wikipedia discourages original research, and one aspect of that is avoiding synthesis. Basically, if the source itself is not directly connected to the film, we cannot publish the novel conclusions. We have film-related guidelines at WP:FILMSCI in regard to this. What we need to do here is find a reliable source that talks about this film and how Kepler's third law of planetary motion applies to it. On Wikipedia, we need to report and summarize connections made elsewhere, and this is one such case. If we Google around, maybe we can find an article to use here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to explain this at User talk:Brian T Arthur. Thanks for opening this topic. - DVdm (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Eric. Several times during the film my belief refused to remain suspended. The laws of physics were repeatedly breached; the false depiction of orbital motion being merely the most fundamental. Quoting a Nobel laureate physicist to illustrate this hardly merits the status of 'original research' but I get the point. Do the film company's lawyers get active on these topics? It seems I have to refer to published material that directly refers to the scientific basis of the film. Well I have been effectively gagged. I am giving up on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian T Arthur (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Same here with my belief when I watched the movie. The 3D-effects were much better than the physics indeed. Don't go, there's a lot you can do here... - DVdm (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am just disappointed that a film called 'Gravity' displays such disregard, ignorance even, of the nature of its eponymous subject matter. Out and out fantasy,: 'Lord of the Rings', His Dark Materials' (Pullman) I can accept, but as I said, science fiction should not violate established physical law, which oddly enough Pullman's work doesn't. I did enjoy the 3D effects though; the technical departments did great work and the lead actors were top notch. It's a pity they were let down by their scientific advisor. I'll keep an eye on things to see if I can make useful contributions in future. B T Arthur (Brian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian T Arthur (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Kowalski's return: hallucination, apparition or divine intervention?

Myself I'd say hallucination, but I've read enough reviews to realize that interpretation won't work for everybody. I added a fact tag to signal that an official source is needed to definitely label Stone's experience as an hallucination, but apparantly those "aren't needed" for a plot summary.

So instead I made an attempt at rewording the passage to avoid putting a specific label on it. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Returning to this subject, I observe that people - over and over and over again - edit out a neutral phrasing (=a phrasing that to the best of my ability I find neutral) such as "Stone then realizes that Kowalski's reappearance is not real" with specific (and most often, non-supernatural and non-religious) interpretations such as "was a hallucination" or "in her imagination". I invite all editors to first discuss this issue here to reach consensus on what to write, reminding everybody that such phenomenon can't be explained by their very nature (and therefore we will never find a source for what we choose unless the filmmakers themselves speak out).

This was also my motivation for including the fact tag back in oct'13. It would have sent a signal to readers we need to write something (to complete our mission to explain the film's plot), but that regardless of what we write it will always need a perpetual "reference missing" tag since it is unverifiable by its very nature.

I'm sure this discussion has taken place several times before, with other pieces of fiction that show but do not tell, and you are welcome to link to any relevant conclusions.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Gravity science fiction?

Just saw this thread about whether or not the film is sci-fi. If it is, it should be mentioned in the article. If not, I suggest someone puts an end to that discussion and submits a correction to IMDB. Anyone with a deeper knowledge on the subject? Film Fan 22:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay so the answer is: no, it's not sci-fi. Film Fan 11:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There are lots and lots of sources describing it as sci-fi. Try google "cuaron gravity sci-fi". I don't think it's worth genre-battling over it, since the film will probably always be described in this way for better or worse. It's set in space so most people (probably even the production team) will call it sci-fi even if it's 100% plausible with today's tech. Staecker (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's just an updated version of Marooned (film) -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Sci-Fi because it's a fictional story involving a lot of science. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Beach drifter (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not what "science fiction" means, though it is indeed what the words "science" and "fiction" mean. See science fiction. Staecker (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing especially science-fiction-ish about this film. It takes place in what people conventionally call "space", an environment where people have worked for the past half-century. The story is populated with elements such as historically real spacecraft, tools, etc. The story is about how the Characters deal with a workday which takes a very bad turn. There's no science at issue in this film. None at all. It's straight drama. It's not sci-fi.

FWIW - "Gravity (film)" is *entirely* science fiction of course - after all, it's not real per se - compare with a more real presentation of human space travel like the NASA documentary film, "For All Mankind" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Drbogan, of course it's fiction. It's not, however, -science- fiction. A story taking place a few miles above most of Earth's atmosphere isn't by default a work of sci-fi. Circa 1950, a story about lofting even a crude satellite could've been sci-fi. For the past 56-years satellites per se have been humdrum facts and are no longer the foci of sci-fi works. It would now take a very clever twist to make a story about a satellite into science fiction. Marooned wasn't sci-fi in its day. SpaceCamp wasn't sci-fi in its day. Nor was Space Cowboys in its day. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea was sci-fi in its day. Ice Station Zebra takes place aboard a nuclear-powered submarine, yet it is not sci-fi.

Thank you for your comments - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me if you wish to think the film is not science fiction - no problem whatsoever - however, for me atm, as before, the film is *entirely* science fiction imo - Thanks in any regards for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for you (or anybody else) to chat about their own opinions about stuff, especially when you're uninterested in anybody else's opinion. This page in particular is to discuss changes to the article about the film Gravity. Unless you or anybody can find reliable sources discussing whether or not Gravity is science fiction, this is all irrelevant. Staecker (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Staecker - Thank you for the reminder - I *entirely* agree - There are many references that regard Gravity (film) as science fiction, including the following: Variety, Box Office Mojo, ReelViews, Rotten Tomatoes, New York Times, Roger Ebert Reviews, USA Today, Time Magazine, Bloomberg, Business Week - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the film should be listed as a straight drama. It's more like an Action thriller. Jb 007clone (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I, too, found myself scratching my head after seeing the film over the question “Is it (technically) science fiction?” I decided the answer was probably “no”, although the designation of “STS-157” (the actual space shuttle program ended with STS-135) might seem to project a sort of alternate future history in which the SS program was not cancelled. I must admit that by some of the definitions listed here, Gravity would be considered SF. Here is Robert Heinlein in 1959: "Realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method.” However, in 1947 the same authority stipulated that “The conditions must be, in some respect, different from here-and-now, although the difference may lie only in an invention made in the course of the story.… [Moreover] the human [plot] problem must be one which is created by, or indispensably affected by, the new conditions”. By this definition, the film is not science fiction. The situation is one in which this film has many attributes strongly associated with past “space movies” -- especially 2001: A Space Odyssey (undeniably a science fiction film), with which it shares many similarities in content and style. The art direction and special effects production of Gravity are of a nature almost always associated exclusively with science fiction movies in the past. However, to be precise, the filmmakers seem to have spun a tale here which carefully avoids the sort of imaginative leap that, to me at least, is essential to designating a work as “science fiction”. I think the distinction matters. The fact that the story takes place in space does NOT, by itself, make it an example of science fiction. Would Tom Hanks’ Apollo 13 be considered “science fiction” if the incidents hadn’t actually happened? I would say no. To me, Gravity is better designated as a “techno-thriller” or a high-altitude disaster film. The fact that numerous media outlets and commentators are calling it “sci-fi” holds no weight at all with me. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Any proper SF fan knows this isn't SF, because they know 'science fiction' is a bit of a misnomer; the genre is better called 'speculative fiction' given that some of it doesn't even involve science/tech, and that it's primarily about making the audience perform thought experiments (more like science via fiction). Fiction written by folks imbued with the spirit of inquiry. Gravity does little to remind us that all laws are local (although it does remind us about the law of gravity). I love SF and I absolutely loved Gravity, but I'd say it's most accurately described as an alternate history techno-thriller (maybe even drop the techno- bit). The fact it's set in the near future is pretty much irrelevant; it affects only the Shuttle mission number AFAIK. Kimmothe (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - Of Possible Interest - The Encyclopedia Britannica Defines/Describes "Science Fiction" as follows:

Copied from => Encyclopedia Britannica

science fiction (abbreviation SF or sci-fi)

a form of fiction that deals principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals. The term science fiction was popularized, if not invented, in the 1920s by one of the genre’s principal advocates, the American publisher Hugo Gernsback. The Hugo Awards, given annually since 1953 by the World Science Fiction Society, are named after him. These achievement awards are given to the top SF writers, editors, illustrators, films, and “fanzines.”

Hope this helps in some way - incidentally, by this definition, the Tom Hanks' film Apollo 13 may be considered science fiction, I would think (Box Office Mojo defines the film as an "action thriller") - OTOH, the NASA documentary film, "For All Mankind" may not be considered science fiction, I would also think - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitions of “science fiction” certainly abound. The one from the EB is one of the worst I’ve seen: By inserting the word “actual” they make a hash of the whole concept. Now, a historical novel about the introduction of the first steamboats into 19th century America, or of Louis Pasteur & his rabies vaccine, become “sci-fi”! Here’s a better:

“science fiction” a genre (of literature, film, etc.) in which the setting differs from our own world (e.g. by the invention of new technology, through contact with aliens, by having a different history, etc.), and in which the difference is based on extrapolations made from one or more changes or suppositions; hence, such a genre in which the difference is explained (explicitly or implicitly) in scientific or rational, as opposed to supernatural, terms. (The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction)

Consider this: Gravity is not only not science fiction, it’s historical fiction. It depicts a past world in which the US space shuttle program has not been cancelled & still exists. It is a fictional story that takes place in a now vanished world. To get the fine details -- the scientific & technical details -- correct, Cuaron had to consult & research the past exclusively! Those space suits, so meticulously recreated, will never be used by American astronauts again, at least not in those precise details. Thus, the movie is a historical costume drama! (OK, that’s probably going too far, but you may get the point….) Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Valerius Tygart I'd say it's more of an alternate future, not historical. It is stated in the film that the Shuttle's mission designation was STS-157. The last real shuttle mission was STS-135. If you assume NASA kept up the rate of 3 or 4 missions per year, that positions this film about 6 years after STS-135, which would be 2017 or later. Also, China's real life space station is estimated to be launching around 2020, which reinforces this theory. Knellotron (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I was exaggerating for effect. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Valerius Tygart - Thank you for your comments - Yes, fwiw, I like both definitions - ie, EB and OXF (and OED => "Imaginative fiction based on postulated scientific discoveries or spectacular environmental changes, freq. set in the future or on other planets and involving space or time travel.") - afaik, they all seem consistent with the current media consensus (see the many refs designating Gravity (film) as a "science fiction" film above) - that Gravity (film) is a "science fiction" film - the definitions also seem to me atm to be compatible w/ each other - at least in some ways (the EB one *may* be a bit more generalized - but perhaps, still accurate I would think atm) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a carefully constructed online encyclopedia or a clearinghouse for "current media consensus"? Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent question imo - ideally, probably striving for the *very best* in academic excellence - anywhere and at any time; however, in more practical terms, probably both - as well as in reader-friendly presentations - I would think - at least to some extent - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that journalism is at its lowest ebb in professionalism for a very long time, and is primarily employed to distract rather than inform, its veracity as a source should generally be regarded as questionable at best. Kimmothe (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so when everyone else gets something wrong, Wikipedia gets it right, then promptly gets it wrong again. It's the Chelsea Manning fiasco all over again. 67.232.147.183 (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that at the very least, the use of the Kessler syndrome, a proposed phenomenon that hasn't actually happened yet, as the film's driving plot device makes it science fiction. Antientropic 22:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antientropic (talk • contribs)

Yes I like 'alternate near-future' for the reasons given above. Also Tiangong 3 will not be on-orbit until 2020 (probably later). It would also explain why Hubble, ISS and the CSS are in nearby orbits... tho that might be a disadvantage for Hubble ... but what the heck. 99.17.8.53 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not science fiction. Nothing in it is speculative. Was Open Water sci fi? How is THAT film different? They had scuba gear and life jackets, both "scientific" products. They used that technology to survive, till they died. This one, someone lives, all the others die. Utter semantic pedantic nonsense to even propose that this is sci fi.~~

Why was 'alternate near-future' removed? That was a perfect description of the setting. 99.17.8.53 (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

---

'Gravity' is techno-thriller. Composite genre which included sci-fi and thriller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.162.41.177 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't just construct a new genre here on a talk page and then use it. And you should reach a consensus before making a change you know is discussed on the talk page. Best, CapnZapp (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Continued below! CapnZapp (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

British-American, British

Well, I realise this may be contentious, but we need to get this right. According to MOS:FILM, and specifically WP:FILMLEAD:

"If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section."

The film is made in Britain, by 2 British companies at British studios, and using British special effects companies. Cuaron even stated:

• at the BAFTA ceremony "I consider myself a part of the British Film Industry".
• "It is a British production shot in the UK Alfonso declared" [7]
• "I am a UK resident. About ninety-eight per cent of the talent working on this film was from Britain. And almost half of the films I have made, I made in the UK." [8]

As Yeti said in a previous post (my boldening): "Isn't the film considered British ? (see British Film Council [9]., Evening Standard [10] & Telegraph India [11]). Therefore British English ? I see a long running Wikipedia argument about the film's nationality coming :) ... The Yeti (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)"

So I have to agree, the lead opening sentence should definitely NOT say British-American, nor the info box. That American money was used, and a possibly American production (not enough info to say WB US, or WB UK were in charge as yet), can be stated later in the body and lead, but not the opening sentence of the lead. There is also the possibility that Warner Bros. UK were in control of production, rather than the US parts of the global company.

Under what conditions would simply being the distributor make this joint with America? None. I realise that American money may have been used (from WB), so does that mean that if a film has an amount of money from a non-US source, it will be ok to start putting "American-(country X that gave us $50 towards the project)"?.

If a Bond film is partly paid for by a Hong-Kong investor, does that make it British-Chinese? Simply having put money into something, as a loan or a payment that is repaid, seems to not warrant it as far as I can see. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a551609/baftas-2014-gravity-best-british-film-win-sparks-online-debate.html CapnZapp (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be down to "produced by". If the production companies are not American, then the film is not either.

I would also consider the previous debacles, such as around Harry Potter. There it was summed up quite nicely by one editor, "Yes the general consensus is that a film's nationality is the country of origin of it's production studios."

Here, the production companies are British (Heyday) and Mexican (Esperanto Filmoj), not American. If anything it would be considered British-Mexican, though I did not put that as Cuaron considers himself part of the British film industry (though it could easily be argued that even though he says that, the production company 'is Mexican).

Either way, American should not be in there. Even if it is shown that WB has some right to be included (as producers -and I see no mention of that anywhere), it would still need determination as to whether it was WB UK or the parent USA company that actually oversaw production. If it was WB UK then it is indeed totally British from that point of view, and the debate should be directed at whether or not "British-Mexican" is mentioned anywhere and enough times to be in the opening sentence.

I realise that the number of edits does not determine the quality of any particular editors contributions, but I would try and steer away from appearing to "own" a page, or to be reverting on a "devil's advocate" basis. A link about a film's nationality which may be of interest Chaosdruid (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've usually placed "English-language" in the opening sentence instead of "American" or "British" or "American-British" when the situation is muddled. I think that's the case here. Defining the film as English-language is just a higher scope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)