Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Gravity (2013 film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Scientific Accuracy: Kowalski letting go

Latest comment: 10 years ago39 comments9 people in discussion

Before starting an edit war on this issue, please read the following [my clarifications]:

[Claim:] Clooney had to let go to save Bullock.

[Status:] True — probably.

On one hand are people like Tyson [Twitter-famous astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson], who argue that, since Clooney was in free-fall and thus essentially weightless, Bullock could have pulled him toward her easily. Both Grazier [Kevin Grazier, the science adviser for the movie] and Frost [NASA engineer Robert Frost] see it differently, though. Here’s Frost’s explanation:

Isaac Newton tells us that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Kowalski was unable to arrest his forward movement by grabbing ahold of the ISS, so he goes floating off into space. Other than gravity, which we can ignore for this close contact scene because it is acting upon everything in the same way, there are no forces acting on Kowalski. He is moving away because he was moving in that direction and nothing stopped him. Ryan (Bullock) goes after Kowalski …

This is where I think the scene gets a little hard to interpret. The fact that she just barely grabs him and doesn't continue closing in on him tells us that she is decelerating. She is decelerating because her leg is caught up in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. If we imagine the parachute cords are a rubber band, what would happen? The band would stretch and the energy needed to stretch it would be taken from Ryan. She has a kinetic energy equal to half her mass times her velocity squared. Her mass can't change, so her velocity would go down.

Now, what affect does Kowalski have on the situation? There is no force acting on him. But he too has a kinetic energy equal to half his mass times his velocity squared. So, if the rubber band is to slow Ryan to a stop it also has to slow Kowalski. So now it has to absorb her energy and his energy. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation is that the parachute cords can't absorb that much energy. So, he figures that if he lets go of her hand, the parachute cords, instead of absorbing Ryan's kinetic energy AND his kinetic energy, will only have to absorb Ryan's kinetic energy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/heres-what-gravity-gets-right-and-wrong-about-space/

This tells me it will probably be hard to achieve consensus this scene really is an scientific inaccuracy worthy of being mentioned in that section of our article. What's your take? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep it out of the article. The section is long enough as is, and if there is any doubt at all about it's accuracy then it should go. — Reatlas (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I am not proposing to enter the above into the article. I have noticed edit warring about a shorter piece regarding this part of the movie going in and out of the article, and I wanted to start a talk section where we could reach consensus on what (if anything) to write regarding this controversial scene of the film. I'll copy it here for us to examine. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the part that several editors (at least two logged in and multiple ip accounts) is warring over:

When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his doom to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, his velocity is zero (no momentum). As Astronomer Phil Plait point out, all Stone had to do was give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski would’ve been safely pulled toward her.^[1]

My point is that (per the Washington Post piece above) this is not necessarily representative for the scientific collective as a whole. Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting... We have two sources saying opposite things... What we can do is put both the opinions there and let the reader choose what is better. This can be done by, let's say, adding the following:

"When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his doom to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, the astronomer, Phil Plait, and the astrophysist, Neil Tyson, contend that as his velocity relative to her was zero, all Stone had to do was give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski would’ve been safely pulled toward her.^{[cite 1]} But according to Kevin Grazier, the science adviser for the movie, and the NASA engineer, Robert Frost, Ryan began decelerating because her leg was caught up in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords weren't rigid enough, they stretched, absorbing the kinetic enregies of Ryan and Kowalski. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation was that the parachute cords weren't strong enough to absorb that much energy. He figures that if he lets go of the tether, the parachute cords, will only have to absorb Ryan's kinetic energy.^{[cite 2]}

I would just like to know what other editors think about this.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi (would that be Syed for short?). If authoritative sources disagree, WP as an encyclopedia should say so; it's not our place to choose between them (and I'm not sure how many of us are qualified to do so anyway). Awien (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly... We can't choose here.

And @Awien I thought my sign and my talk should be sufficient to tell people that my name is Wamiq... Syed is just a clan-specific honorific equivalent to Sir/Mr—ШαмıQ✍ @ 18:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wamiq, when I responded to you, your signature was rendering as Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi, in red, so i didn't bother clicking on it. Now I know. Awien (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, while there are choices to be made, that choice is not necessarily up on the table here. There are several options and several points to weigh here: we can write nothing (if "science" can't agree on the accuracy then that suggests it's not a notable inaccuracy), we can write something (if lots of visitors expect this issue to be addressed). We can cite both viewpoints or we could just pick one (for any of a number of reasons). Then again, we could write nothing simply to keep the section neat and slim. Etc. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Though I personally do not consider this an inaccuracy now, we have a source which says so... We can present it just for its own sake, as it may grab a reader's interest. And as I've proposed here, we can mention the counter-argument next to it. We can't include just one (it would violate WP:OR), nor can we exclude everything... And as there has been a deal of discussion on the issue in sources, it qualifies as WP:NOTABLE (as it seems to me). So the only option is to include both of them... @CapnZapp: And your fourth option (“we can write something”—can you please elaborate?)—ШαмıQ✍ @ 19:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wamiq. The point is notable because it's a crucial element of the plot so people are interested in whether it's valid - and informed opinion differs. We should mention both. Awien (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I offer for your consideration an abridged and slightly reworked version of Wamiq's suggested text. See what you think.

When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his doom to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, astronomer Phil Plait and astrophysist Neil Tyson contend that since his velocity relative to her is zero, all Stone has to do is give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski will be safely pulled toward her. But according to Kevin Grazier, science adviser for the movie, and NASA engineer Robert Frost, Stone is actually decelerating because her leg is caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords absorb her kinetic energy, they are stretching. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation is that the cords are not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must therefore release the tether in order not to drag her to her death.

Awien (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wamiq likes this

Yes, sounds better than mine...—ШαмıQ✍ @ 08:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

But please change those present-tense verbs to past tense. I was inconsistent there and we should actually have all past tenses here.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 08:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Write something? Well, first off I must say I do not find the proposed paragraph accurately reflects either article's viewpoint. The Slate article does not "contend that since his velocity relative to her is zero". The observation Phil Plait is making is "both her and Clooney’s velocity relative to the space station was zero". His outright claim, the thing he's basing his entire "inaccuracy claim" on, is, quote: "They had stopped." Moving on, the WP piece does not say Kowalski "must therefore release the tether in order not to drag her to her death" - that's an oversimplification that in my opinion fails to convey the intended explanation; instead it says he lets go in order to significantly lower the kinetic energy the cords need to absorb in order to slow Stone to a stop.

But personally, my take is: rather than concluding the movie makes such an obvious and amateurish mistake ("forgetting" that there's no gravity in play) that can make it strenuous for Stone to reel in Kowalski, which also downplays the risk of the parachute cords failing; I myself much rather prefer the alternate theory that contents they had not stopped - and then focus on the forces exerted on the parachute cords; specifically that the risk that they come strung out and thus completely untangled (which would release Stone's foot and doom them both) before their elasticity can halt and reverse their motion away from safety would be much lessened if Stone's mass could somehow be more than halved (i.e. Kowalski, being the heavier human and wearing the MMU to boot, letting go).

But I readily admit that whatever was the script-writer's intention, the movie failed to make this very clear. I believe something should be said, if only to not have to have this discussion over and over as other editors add their interpretation... ;-)

And so, with this in mind, I present an alternate paragraph for your consideration:

When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his doom to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, several observers (including astronomer Phil Plait and astrophysist Neil Tyson) contend that the move shows the pair having stopped floating away. In this case, all Stone has to do is give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski will be safely pulled toward her, since there is no gravity like when you're hanging from a rope on Earth. But according to Kevin Grazier, science adviser for the movie, and NASA engineer Robert Frost, the pair are actually still decelerating, her leg caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords absorb her kinetic energy, they are stretching. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation is that the cords are not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must therefore release the tether in order to give her a chance of stopping before they're both doomed.

CapnZapp (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Wamiq likes this, too

The finishing touch:

When Kowalski unclipped his tether and floated away to his doom to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, several observers (including astronomer Phil Plait and astrophysicist Neil Tyson) contend that the move showed the pair having stopped floating away. In that case, all Stone had to do was to give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski would have been safely pulled toward her, since there was no gravity to pull him away. But according to Kevin Grazier, science adviser for the movie, and NASA engineer Robert Frost, the pair were actually still decelerating, her leg being caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords absorbed her kinetic energy, they stretched. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation was that the cords were not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must therefore release the tether in order to give her a chance of stopping before they were both doomed.

And @CapnZapp: I removed your “like when you're hanging from a rope on Earth” because it didn't seem quite ok to fit there.
And I hope I don't look like a cook ‘... spoiling the broth’—ШαмıQ✍ @ 09:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Briefly (going somewhere):

"no gravity" is incorrect, it's just that we can disregard it since they are equally in free fall around the earth;
agree with Wamiq that "like when you're hanging from a rope on Earth" isn't very encyclopedic phraseology;
agree with CapnZapp that the tense we normally use in critical analysis is the present, as in all the rest of the article. (Plait does slip into the past when discussing this moment, but when we paraphrase his argument we can use the more normal present).

but no time to tweak right now.

Awien (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his death to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, several observers (including Phil Plait and Neil Tyson) contend that all Stone had to do was to give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski would have been safely pulled toward her, since the movie showed the pair having stopped and there would thus be no force to pull Kowalski away. Others, such as Kevin Grazier, science adviser for the movie, and NASA engineer Robert Frost, suggest that the pair were actually still decelerating, with Stone's leg being caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords absorb her kinetic energy, they stretch. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation was that the cords were not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must therefore release the tether in order to give her a chance of stopping before the cords snapped and doomed both of them."

Tense changed, some rewording and rephrasing for clarity and tone. I've also removed the titles from Plait and Tyson because who they are is already explained. Better? — Reatlas (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes... Can easily go ahead. No objection.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 17:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

To be picky, it still needs to be in the present tense:

"When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his death to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, several observers (including Phil Plait and Neil Tyson) contend that all Stone had to do was to give the tether a gentle tug, and Kowalski would have been safely pulled toward her, since the movie shows the pair having stopped and there would thus be no force to pull Kowalski away. Others, such as Kevin Grazier, science adviser for the movie, and NASA engineer Robert Frost, suggest that the pair are actually still decelerating, with Stone's leg caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords absorb her kinetic energy, they stretch. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation is that the cords are not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must therefore release the tether in order to give her a chance of stopping before the cords snap and doom both of them."

Otherwise, good to go for me too (although "stopped" might not be quite the right word given that everything, people and station, are in free fall around the earth at a rate of ~8 kilometres per second, and only at rest - or not - relative to each other). Awien (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Good work, people. One thing though, losing the word "but" makes it less clear we're presenting two opposite viewpoints, i.e. one suggesting it's an inaccuracy and the other that it is not. Reading the paragraph as suggested could make a reader scratch her head as to what exactly is the inaccuracy presented by the second position (reasonable given that we're in the inaccuracy section of the article) - when in fact we are about to include it as an example of "no this isn't a glaring inaccuracy at all" kind of thing. Also, please avoid wordage such as "the cords are not strong enough" and "the cords snap". Grazier never uses that language, and I don't want the reader to question if parachute cords snap that easily when that might or might not be what Grazier had in mind. CapnZapp (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Re that last point, let me elaborate: Grazier only talks about "absorbing kinetic energy", and if he studiously avoids mentioning possibilities for the cords to snap, come loose (from the capsule) or simply come untangled (and slip off Ryan's foot) (just to take three possibilities out of a hat) so should we. Personally I believe he is talking about the cords elasticity and specifically the property of their "springiness" (as opposed to their tensile strength, the robustness of their fastenings, etc) to absorb Stone's kinetic energy as opposed to Stone's plus Kowalski's plus the MMU's combined kinetic energy. If you are able to simplify this language without devolving into a too-specific scenario, please go ahead. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So tweak it, dear CapnZapp, dear CapnZapp, dear CapnZapp.

So tweak it, dear CapnZapp,

Dear CapnZapp, tweak it!

(To the tune of There's a Hole in My Bucket, in the creamy tones of Harry Belafonte).

Slipping back into semi-retirement, Awien (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally prefer Grazier's original terminology. But I recognize the value of condensing the text, so I won't insist on that. As long as the resulting text doesn't oversimplify I'm cool with whatever you come up with. CapnZapp (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I have to say I liked the movie and I like the director and the actors. Having said that, I think the "Kowalski letting go" controversy is the most glaring scientific inaccuracy in the movie, in one of the most dramatic and emotionally charged scenes. I think it should remain on the list. A disclaimer that opinions vary is OK. The scientific consultant on the movie may not be an impartial judge. The scene seems to be based on real and fictitious accounts when a mountain climber would cut himself or herself off to save their partner. Here, for all practical purposes, gravity does not exist. If Kowaski were not in motion relative to ISS, Stone could have easily pulled him back. If he was in motion, the tether and parachute ropes stretching (converting kinetic energy to potential energy: mV^2/2 = - Kx), when he let go, she would be violently pulled back, as by a bungee or a spring. The two interpretations contradict each other. I’m an engineer who worked on the space shuttle on a contract from NASA, and a mountain climber. --Brzostowski 18:37, 8 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Well, Ryan did get a violent jerk backwards when Kowalski let go of the tether. So the second explanation seems plausible.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 19:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK folks, I'm going to boldly post the most recent of the rewrites, adding "however" (rather than "but") to make it clear these are differing opinions. I am completely open to being reverted, corrected, tweaked, whatever.

May I say too that this is how WP should, but doesn't always work: civilly, collaboratively, constructively. Best, Awien (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Could one of you please add the refs? I'm not succeeding in making them work. Thanks, Awien (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Done CapnZapp (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Bold is beautiful! CapnZapp (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I did tweak "snap" to "fail" because I feel it's less specific and more true to Graziers' reasoning. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I know y'all have come to a paragraph that puts both views in, but can I throw in a spanner ? Given that the parachute cable in question is attached to something designed to slow down a re-entering faster-than-a-speeding-bullet(?) capsule, I guess its a) pretty tough and not easily snappable; & b) probably not very elastic either (or at least the force need to stretch it is quite high). Presuming Cuaron & co. researched the parachutes as thoroughly as everything else for scientific accuracy, wouldn't they know this ? And used 'real' cables for the scenario ? Therefore either our interpretation of Grazier/Frost's comments is wrong, or they are just plain wrong (or maybe its me just wrong). Anyone want to investigate the properties of parachute reentry cables ? Gotta be on Wikipedia somewhere ... The Yeti (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Yeti, Wamiq put it in a nutshell above. I quote: "Though I personally do not consider this an inaccuracy now, we have a source which says so... We can present it just for its own sake, as it may grab a reader's interest. And as I've proposed here, we can mention the counter-argument next to it. We can't include just one (it would violate WP:OR), nor can we exclude everything... And as there has been a deal of discussion on the issue in sources, it qualifies as WP:NOTABLE (as it seems to me). So the only option is to include both of them." Awien (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This was what I was afraid of when we simplified Grazier's language into "the cords snap" (or even "the cords fail"). @The Yeti: Please read the original wording in the source article. There you will see that Grazier talks about "absorbing kinetic energy" in a general way, never questioning the cords' strength.

Therefore stupidly killing himself by believing the extremely unlikely scenario that the cords would rupture despite being made to arrrest the re-entry of a capsule weighing 3000kg[87] traveling at 300mph [88] causing forces unfathomable to a human grasp

Again my fears have been confirmed. The above frustrated addition clearly means its possible to misread the simplified language as meaning "the cords snap" (which I can agree is a bit preposterous). If it happens one more time, I will seek your consensus in adding more of Grazer's complex language back in... Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your second question (b), yes it would indeed be useful to have expert help. I can only say that for me, Grazier's theory still holds even if the cords are rather inelastic - some of the kinetic energy could still be absorbed simply by how the jumble of parachute wiring coming undone as dragged outwards by Stone. If they are as heavy-duty as you suggest, that alone could account for some of the slowdown needed to save Ryan, and it would easily explain why Kowalski made his decision (since his weight and the weight of his MMU would add to the combined kinetic energy in a very significant way, probably - and I'm not a maths wizz - constituting 80% of their total). But since that is just uninformed speculation, the relevant fact is that any theory good for Grazier and Frost is good for me. Anything missing is probably just ignorance on my part (and yours perhaps?). In contrast, to believe Plait and Tyson, you need to accept that an otherwise thoroughly-researched movie would make a clumsy, jarring and completely avoidable amateur mistake. (Unlike the other reported inaccuracies, which even a layman like me can understand were necessary for the story) For me, that alone makes their stance much less credible than any technical shortcomings of parachute cord portrayals. :-) CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's one more interpretation of the scene; this time by Tina Fey:

"'Gravity' is nominated for best film. It's the story of how George Clooney would rather float away into space and die than spend one more minute with a woman his own age."

-- 2014 Golden Globes Opening Monologue

Ouch ;-) Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are two images that will clear up any confusion about this specific scene. http://imgur.com/a/SMHfz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.61.156.140 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OK then: On one side we have "science advisors" being paid by the movie's backers to justify the scientific credentials of what would otherwise be an even more boring plot. On the other we have third party experts who have no financial gains to make from their opinions. Hmmmmm... I'm having a really hard time deciding who to believe... NOT.

And no-one has even mentioned the ridiculous manner in which the space station breaks up as it re-enters the earth's upper atmosphere (it looks like an aircraft falling apart at sea-level pressures), nor (at the film's start) the low relative velocities of the impacting debris field, the gay abandon with which Kowalsky flies around wasting his precious 'jet-pac' fuel, or the idiotic chit chat that no real astronaut who would have spent months/years preparing for the mission of his/her life would make. Also, citing the statements of astronauts or NASA officials is not necessarily going to clarify matters either: they have a vested interest in making this kind of movie as popular as possible.1812ahill (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So, you didn't like the movie? HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Short film on the DVD

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The DVD contains a short film entitled "Aningaaq" which, some of you will know, looks at the scene where Ryan is talking with someone whose speaks a language that she does not understand from that persons point of view. I wonder if those of you who are taking care of this article think it merits a brief mention - perhaps in the home media section. If not no worries I thought I would throw it out as a suggestion. MarnetteD | Talk 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Already mentioned as a quick page search reveals (at Aningaaq the character in the Cast section). Thank you for your suggestion. CapnZapp (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I scanned the article and missed its mention. As other wiser people have said "You always find the thing you are seeking in the last place you look for it." :-) MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

British or American, or both?

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Is this a British film, or should it be described as British-American? It was funded by an American studio, but made in the UK. Funding does not determine nationality - Jaguar was a UK firm even when owned by Ford.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Warner Brothers appears to have purchased the intellectual property rights to the film so they actually own the film which is a lot more than simply financing the film. The location of filming is if no concern towards nationality because many movies are filmed on location or at film studios with better facilities or in cities that offer tax breaks. JOJ ^Hutton 04:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, the location of filming - and the composition of the crew - is very much a part of the rules that are used to determine the nationality of a film. BAFTA, for example, regard gravity as a British production using the rules devised by the BFI, which in turn determine whether a film is eligible for the very tax breaks you mention (i.e. to get the breaks, a film has to score at least 16 out of a possible 31 points). Nick Cooper (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That line of reasoning would conflict with Game of Thrones, which is an American production despite some British funding and not a single scene being filmed on American soil (most of it in UK/Northern Ireland, with some parts in Morrocco and Iceland). In that case it would seem the nationality of the production company who created the series is the basis for a film/TV series nationality. In this case Warner Bros. is an American company with numerous subsidiaries. This is not dissimilar to A Clockwork Orange, filmed in Britain under Warner Bros., which is considered British-American. Gravity's nationality on Wikipedia should be reflected through Wikipedia's rules, not BFI's rules. I support calling it "British-American" on that basis. Jodon | Talk 14:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Warner Bros, Heyday Films and Esperanto Filmoj made Gravity, so really it's an British-American-Mexican film, although Alfonso Cuaron appears to now credit his work as British even if produced via his Mexican based company, so I guess it could be argued to be a British-American film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:FILMLEAD. It is cited just above. The only thing that matters is the attribution from reliable sources. In other words, check the sources we cite in the article. What nationality do they say it is? (Who made the film, or where it was produced, what prizes it has won, or what the director has to say and so on... is of no relevance for purposes of following Wikipedia policy in this regard). Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that even the sources are confused. The BAFTAs awarded it "outstanding British film". The Guardian reports as follows:

Wendy Mitchell, editor of Screen Daily magazine, said that Gravity, "may be a British-crafted film. But it's not a British cultural film."
Bafta chief executive, Amanda Berry, described it as "an international ceremony with a British perspective".

Digital Spy reports the following:

Trade publication Variety explained that Gravity does qualify as a British film, posting on its Twitter feed: "Gravity qualifies as a British film for 'significant British creative involvement,'
However, Screen International chief reporter Andreas Wiseman expressed the view that Gravity does not pass BAFTA's 'cultural test'. He tweeted: "A film needs 16 points in the BFI's 'cultural test' to qualify as #British | Does #Gravity pass? Not by my maths." He then included a link to British Film Institute's 'culture test for a film'.
Journalist Guy Lodge of Variety and The Observer wrote on his Twitter page: "I hear the reasons for Gravity qualifying as a British film. I understand them. But still... no."
Peter Davies of Fishbeat Productions also expressed his disagreement over the win, posting: "Gravity, the American financed film, directed by a Mexican, starring two Americans, filmed in England, wins Best British film at BAFTA.
Fearnet film critic Scott Weinberg observed: "Gravity is a British film? OK. In order to qualify for a BAFTA, a film must be partially shot in Great Britain, or have a British producer or open in British theaters."

Perhaps this debate should be reflected in the lead? Jodon | Talk 00:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If the film's nationality is not singularly defined by reliable sources, then I suggest that we cover the different national interests later in the lead section (later than the opening sentence, that is). Why? Because that's what the policy tells us to do :-) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me also note that your sources aren't the ones currently cited. Currently when I write this, the relevant sources - the sources for the opening sentence where the nationality is currently stated - are four in number: Box Office Mojo (which does not identify a nationality, or presumes the US; I don't know which), Reelviews (stating both the UK and US), the Vancouver Sun (the link is currently borked but the review doesn't state a nationality as far I can see), and the South China Morning Post (a quick scan caught "mexican", "Hollywood" and "Britain's Pinewood and Shepperton Studios"). CapnZapp (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest a short section in the article dealing with public perception of the film's nationality? The nature of its confusion could be explained using at least the sources I mentioned, with more to be added of course. This could then be reflected in a single sentence in the lead. Jodon | Talk 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest you talk about this in a new section? Reporting the "is this British?" row is a separate thing from us discussing how we report the film's nationality. The former is something external to Wikipedia, the latter is internal to Wikipedia. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(non-scientific) accuracy

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

(Sorry this sounds like a film comment, but)
My main turn-off while watching this film was that way too many astronauts were doing a spacewalk at once, and the just-for-fun jetting around. Nothing like that would ever happen during a real mission, where minimizing risk is a way of life.
One can’t call this a "scientific inaccuracy" though, it’s more "unrealistic plot", so I’m not sure how/where to put this into the article.
Anyway, after that, the way all those *major* technical failures were being "solved" miraculously quickly and easily was only confirming my growing disbelief, or maybe I should say, gravity broke my suspension of disbelief--pun intended. I’m just amazed nobody else has brought up this "unrealistic mission" point, as far as I’ve seen, that is. Here’s at least something in that direction[1].--Geke (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't put it anywhere. We only include points discussed by good sources (by Wikipedia standards). Sounds harsh, but let me explain.

Most movies "cut corners" (what you call unrealistic plot points). In fact, most movies are rife with anything from simple editing mistakes to deliberate and intentional deviations from real life. However - only a few movies impress the audience by their overall verisimilitude to such a point that good sources find it worthwhile to debate specific instances where an uninformed public might think everything is in order but where reality might work far differently. Gravity is one of those few movies. And since Wikipedia is ONLY about compiling verifiable information (anything else is so called original research which has no place here), we only include "scientific inaccuracy" points for those select few movies, and ONLY those points for which we can find good sources. This is why you should not and do not find general "unrealistic plot" points in this article. Hope that clears it up CapnZapp (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you made it really clear :) Of course, I know that it's not a forum but an encyclopedia, I was mainly kind of thinking aloud/asking around if anyone had seen reviews mentioning my kind of unrealities, after I got frustrated hearing numerous astronauts and other experts going on at length about the tiniest details, but not saying one word about this one BIG mistake. I'm not American, maybe that's my problem...--Geke (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a general forum for Gravity. Here we discuss improvements to the article about Gravity. CapnZapp (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, wait, this article does list some good points in "my" direction; if I get the time and urge, I can put some of it in the "Critical Response" section. --Geke (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:SOURCE and specifically WP:BLOGS about why this is not a good idea. CapnZapp (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, glad I asked :-) Thanks a lot for the specific pointer, that really helps. I usually find the Wikipedia info very unwieldy.--Geke (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. CapnZapp (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

time for automatic archiving

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In light of how the first few talk sections are severely redundant by now, I would like to establish consensus on switching on automatic archiving of this talk page. Especially wearying are discussions that couldn't accept the female actress having first billing, discussions claiming the internet hates this film (when it in reality has met with near-universal acclaim) etc... but several more sections are simply outdated. CapnZapp (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. I have no objections. What criteria/time limit did you have in mind? Jodon | Talk 14:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If there aren't standards for this I suggest "Threads older than 90 days may be archived"... CapnZapp (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. CapnZapp (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Internet Backlash / Critical Concept Reception

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

How has this not been raised? It got slammed everywhere, from one side of the internets to the other. The most common reviews of the concept and it's trailers are possibly the most hostile I have ever seen reviewers, critics, and just average internet punters like you or I get. One line that comes to mind, that has subsequently been reposted everywhere is:

I love the part where nothing happens.

This sums up the internets view, albeit the worlds, pending the release. It's quite interesting really, as no other film in history bar snakes on a plane (which strangely spun positive) got the internets knickers in a knot. It's definitely notable. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources covering this response? I found this which links to this, which does not match what you said. I don't know if it is worth reporting if the reaction is not that universal one way or another. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that actual reviews are trickling in and are uniformly positive, often ecstatically so, we can see why editing the article to reflect a nonexistent backlash on the "internets" was a terrible idea.

People's opinions on the internet are pointless. And you don't need to point out the irony of my comment either. Find a source to back up your "It got slammed everywhere, from one side of the internets to the other" if you can. Haha "internets". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the film did get slammed on the Internet. Take a look at the 1 and 2 star reviews of the film on Amazon.com. Over a third of these reviewers hated the film. Then there are the professionals. Astronaut Scott Parazynski pretty much took the movie apart. Then there are the scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Phil Plait, etc. Bret 3/1/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bretincalifornia (talk • contribs) 06:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

While lots of people online hated the film, it received extremely positive reviews; one, if not the, highest rated film of the year. It also received ten Academy Award nominations including Best Picture. 67.160.117.123 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: sufficient overall though th...

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

78.180.138.136 posted this comment on 16 December 2013 (view all feedback).

sufficient overall though this kind of film demands just more thematic exploration and of course more technical details on production process.

Any thoughts?

CapnZapp (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC) The film did require more technicalities than the average sci-fi film. It won nearly every technical award it could at the Academy Awards, though. So it was worth it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.117.123 (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Science accuracy: shuttle spinning

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I moved the following to here at the talk:

The Shuttle Explorer is sent spinning at considerable angular velocity by the initial strike of debris sending Stone hurtling into space. After being rescued by Kowalski they return to the Explorer which without explanation has completely stopped spinning.

Obviously, this needs sourcing to be included. However, even if so I think this might qualify more as a continuity mistake than a true scientific (in)accuracy. After all, we do not think the filmakers are defying reality when the hero is in a yellow shirt one scene and a red the next. Therefore I would like to suggest scrutinizing the source used, so that it's clear that it talks about the movie's scientific accuracy when mentioning the shuttle spinning and not merely an error, or continuation gaffe.

In other words, please do not post all errors regarding technicalities, only ones relevant for the theme: scientific errors of a film set in space. My 2 cents anyway CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It was still spinning when Ryan and Matt returned, but it was much slower than before. Same with Ryan spinning. 67.160.117.123 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Greenlit

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

An entry about the film's greenlit status have been added.

First, it said: The film has yet to be greenlit. ^[2] Then, it said: As of March 2013, film has yet to be greenlit. ^[3]

I don't believe either version makes much sense to the casual reader. Wouldn't it be better to say something along the lines of:

The film was made without officially passing green-light status.

That's speculation, by the way, since I am not an authority to the inner workings of film studios. Only problem is that if this verifiable and now also comprehensible, it's still just a bit of trivia. Thus, I've removed it. What do y'all think - is this notable?

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks odd and outdated, regardless of the source reliability which in this case is Vimeo. Brandmeister^talk 22:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm the guy who put that there. No hard feelings about being edited but I thought I'd explain myself. Yes, it is notable. If you watch the video, you'll learn that the development and production of Gravity was highly irregular. As to the reliability of the source, it's a Q&A with Cuaron. 99.174.250.130 (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Then I think any passage should say something like:

The development and production of Gravity was irregular, including not being officially greenlit

Just saying "it has yet to be greenlit" triggers questions like "but I thought greenlighting was a phase in film development?", "how come this film exists if it isn't greenlit?" and "Yet to be? Can a film be greenlit after it's finished?" I am not trying to be a smart ass, I'm trying to explain why the factoid needs more context to be useful to a reader. And even so, I have a hard time seeing the notability of the individual fact the movie didn't see a green light. If you can find a second (preferably written) source discussing the film's troubled development, then its irregular production can certainly be mentioned, and perhaps even the bit about the greenlight status... CapnZapp (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Top 10 (static) or Top 100 (dynamic)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I notice editors adding the movie's position on the top 100 list of most grossing films of all time, supplementing (and sometimes even replacing) the movie's position on the top 10 list of most grossing films of 2013.

I think this is problematic:

1) The spot on the 2013 is (presumably) static. We can say it's 8th, and just leave it there. The spot of the all time high list is highly dynamic. We would have to update this continuously in near-perpetuity (at least until it falls out of the top 100... and then, what, instead of including it's position on the top 250 or whatevs, using its top 10 place after all?)

2) a top 10 spot in a certain year is, to me, much more notable than a place on the lower half of the top 100.

But my main reason for making this a talk page topic is this: haven't this been discussed before? I ~~assume~~ expect there's a central discussion somewhere where Wiki policy on this issue have already been settled? I'd like an informed editor to link to any relevant discussion, so we don't have to repeat something that (likely) have been settled already. Thank you.

CapnZapp (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

June Cleanup

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removed hatnote. WP:NAMB is not clear (far from it) but what it discourages is hatnotes to "YYY" from pages of the "YYY (spec)" kind. The rationale is "a reader is unlikely to arrive at YYY (spec) looking for some other kind of YYY." In this case, I kind of agree - we're a film article, and if we are to link to the general concept of gravity (which I do not oppose), a hatnote is not the appropriate tool to use.
"Kowalski's reappearance is not real". This is a talk page topic (now archived: Talk:Gravity (film)/Archive 1#Kowalski's return: hallucination, apparition or divine intervention?), and until somebody contests my opinion by discussing the subject, I'll keep the intentional ambiguity about the nature of Kowalski's reappearance. Thank you.
Trimming "shedding her spacesuit" sentence
Her "shaky steps" is an intentional homage to the evolution to man: removing possibly misleading link to effects of space on man. This kind of analysis better belongs in the Themes section (where it is already discussed).
Removing "currently No 12 on Rotten Tomatoes" bit. Such info is too fleeting and impossible to maintain.
In the scientific inaccuracies section, "mistakes" replaced by "deviations from reality". Argument: saying "mistake" implies the film team made an error, when they might well be perfectly aware they're not depicting reality. For the same reason, I don't like "inaccuracy" either, but will let that stand, since it is wordage directly taken from sources.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Kowalski's Suggestion

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Old version:

The parachute of the remaining Soyuz has deployed, rendering the capsule useless for returning to Earth. Kowalski suggests using it to travel to the nearby Chinese space station Tiangong, 100 km (60 mi) away and board one of its modules to return safely to Earth. Out of air and maneuvering power, the two try to grab onto the ISS as they fly by. Stone's leg gets entangled in Soyuz's parachute cords and she grabs a strap on Kowalski's suit. Despite Stone's protests, Kowalski detaches himself from the tether to save her from drifting away with him, and she is pulled back towards the ISS while Kowalski floats away.

New version:

The parachute of the remaining Soyuz has deployed, rendering the capsule useless for returning to Earth. Out of air and maneuvering power, the two try to grab onto the ISS as they fly by. Stone's leg gets entangled in Soyuz's parachute cords and she grabs a strap on Kowalski's suit. Despite Stone's protests, Kowalski detaches himself from the tether to save her from drifting away with him, and she is pulled back towards the ISS while Kowalski floats away. As he floats away, Kowalski suggests using the second Soyuz's parachute to travel to the nearby Chinese space station Tiangong, 100 km (60 mi) away and board one of its modules to return safely to Earth.

I understand the change was made to better match the sequence of events, but like the previous version better: it ends on the most important note (losing Kowalski). What do you think? CapnZapp (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

why is gravity classified as Scifi?

Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

Im wondering why is gravity classified as Scifi? Definition of scfi is follows: Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It often explores the potential consequences of scientific and other innovations, and has been called a "literature of ideas".[1] Authors commonly use science fiction as a framework to explore identity, desire, morality, social structure, and other literary themes.

Which Gravity deals nothing of the sort. The gap of that futuristic drama or how our technology is different from the future is far too close to be a Scifi film. While yea it means science fiction in the sense its fictional story account, it is not what wiki defines scifi. Scifi deals with in boundaries of different planets, technology that is futuristic enough to bend scientific rules or make it seem real or an alternated universe where the same thing. Gravity is only a woman drama going up to space. It isn't as futuristic, its still pretty close today and what our job deals with, a person going up to space to fix the international space station. Just saying as an alternative future is not enough to say its scifi. That would me to include the other movies that are just guys in space as well. Even the director says him self he wasn't even dealing with a scifi to begin with; just a generic space drama. Or well he doesn't know what to call it either.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-26381335 http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/142360/Director-Of-Gravity-Alfonso-Cuaron-Claims-The-Film-Is-Not-Sci-Fi-Despite-It-Taking-Place-In-Space

Even these forums don't agree with IDMB consensus of a sci fi film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/board/thread/226885764 http://themovieblog.com/2014/is-gravity-science-fiction/ http://filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/gravity-is-not-sci-fi.php Maeiounj39 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Q: why is gravity classified as Scifi?

A: because we only report what our sources say! In other words, Wikipedia does not classify anything, that would be original research. Instead we select - by consensus - sources, compile what they say, and present that in one piece: the article. This way, Gravity is described as scifi because we report the genre according to references cited. CapnZapp (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Gravity is considered Science-fiction, but it isn't what you would normally see. Science-fiction is a genre that simply is science related (outer space, for example). It doesn't necessarily need to take place in the future or have giant aliens. Most sci-fi films do, though. 67.160.117.123 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. (See WP:VNT)

Meaning that discussing the genre of sci-fi, and whether you or I can or cannot shoehorn the movie into this or that definition, isn't particularly relevant. Instead what we do is, at the risk of repeating myself :) , simply report the genre according to references cited. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Aargh! Yet another one of Wikipedia's lovely self-contradictions. "Verifiable" means "to prove the truth of". That other bastion of self-contradiction of course being "Neutral point of view" (something is either neutral or has a point of view, thus nullifying its neutrality, it can't be both). Blecch! Jodon | Talk 12:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Verify with Verifiable. To verify means proving the truth, but we're not talking about that here. We're talking about verifiability: about allowing readers to check the facts with sources. In other words: Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it to Wikipedia. That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. (Quotes from WP:VERIFY and WP:VNT)

Saying that "verify" has a different meaning from "verifiability" is a basic contradiction in semantics. You're trying to split hairs in order to justify the faulty reasoning and language misuse behind that policy, which naturally causes confusion. Look up any dictionary and you'll still find that "verifiability" means "to prove the truth of", or "to ascertain the truth or correctness of" something. Separating the 2 as if they were autonomous is absurd as saying "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, IT IS NOT A DUCK". This is therefore an application of faulty logic through a poor understanding and/or deliberate misuse of language. "Checking facts against sources" still means "to assert the truth of something". So, now the policy-makers can invent their own definition of a word to suit themselves? I think not. Just because you're able to cite policy it doesn't make that policy, or Wikipedia for that matter, correct. Jodon | Talk 11:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you clearly possess the qualities of a good Wikipedia editor, Jodon, I strongly suggest you turn your attention toward more constructive endeavors. You simply can't convince me Wikipedia is "faulty" or "misuses language" no matter how hard you try; and why are you even here if you're so dissatisfied with the way we build the encyclopedia? I acknowledge the way WP:VERIFY isn't all too intuitive, and I have gone to some lengths trying to be helpful towards you and other readers, explaining how Wikipedia works. There really is no point trying to bicker with me, since I neither write policy nor disagree with it. It's time for you to accept reality or move on, Jodon. Either way, I think we're done here unless you have a genuine question on how best contribute to "Gravity (film)"? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My question about "Gravity" remains open and unaddressed (see suggestion further above about adding a section in the article about the film's nationality).

Otherwise thanks for the compliment. Yes I agree a more "constructive endeavor" would be for me to abandon Wikipedia altogether, as clearly people such as yourself (no offense) are an example of why Wikipedia is a case of the blind leading the blind. Like in Wells' story, the wiki-community has "adapted to life without sight", which is a shame, because the great potential of this project remains. Yes, I am dissatisfied, and I do plan to retire from Wikipedia soon, as I have had some reservations about Wikipedia for some time now. Yes, as you indicate below, it was an (obviously now) vain hope that someone would understand the paradox inherent in making contributions to a framework supported by a faulty foundation. Thanks anyway for your replies, and my apologies if I've steered the conversation off topic. Jodon | Talk 23:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Other than that, I'd like to remind us all that this page is not the correct venue for discussing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is the place to discuss improvements to the Gravity (film) article. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You brought up the subject, a valid one, which you are now disregarding. Don't worry, I won't labour on about it here if you won't, as it is inevitably like Flogging a dead horse. Jodon | Talk 11:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not worrying. I took the time to explain the policy. But please don't mistake my helpfulness for an interest in discussing the policy. I'm simply telling you how things work here (to the best of my ability) so you can accommodate, that is all. If there is a valid comparison to be made here, I'd be more inclined towards this one, I'm afraid. Good day and good bye. CapnZapp (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

While I love good sci-fi, here I also feel myself uncomfortable with that sci-fi label (as I already noted here on talk earlier). For me this is the case when verifiability does not guarantee inclusion since the sources do not explain why the film should be regarded as sci-fi (at least, they don't give a compelling reason). The only thing that soothes me is that the action takes place during a fictitious future space mission. But still I'd rather leave just "space drama" and/or "thriller" as the genre in the lead section. Brandmeister^talk 22:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking your opinion. As always, if you can construct a lede using a good selection of sources that support your position, then you might achieve consensus to use that instead. The main issue is, of course: Can we honestly say that the sources that refer to the movie as "science fiction" makes up an insignificant minority? Because, if we can't, then we should include them and their chosen descriptor. What we definitely should not do, however, is to allow our lede to be influenced by our own personal opinions on the matter. You or I might personally feel sources are lazy or ignorant to label Gravity as sci fi, but we must not arbitrarily decide to exclude these sources from this particular article when Wikipedia regards them as good sources elsewhere. Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps of some interest, I googled the very question asked here: "why is gravity classified as Scifi?"

I got several links to this being discussed (read questioned):

http://filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/gravity-is-not-sci-fi.php

http://themovieblog.com/2014/is-gravity-science-fiction/

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/screenwriter/2013/10/09/gravity-is-not-a-science-fiction-film/

etc

Even if these particular links can't be used (they all looked like blogs, see WP:BLOGS, but I didn't check) it indicates we might have a topic for inclusion in the article. Note: In the article, not the lede. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Some points:

1. People are arguing that sources call the movie science fiction and that the job here is to reflect the sources, not to do 'original research'. In that case, firstly I would respond that there are many sources which say that 9/11 was an inside job but that is not what is reflected on the 9/11 wiki page because we all know those sources are looney tunes. Secondly I would also ask that if a number of sources incorrectly use a word - for example if they all use penultimate to mean 'best', as some people mistakenly do - then does that mean the wiki definition of penultimate now changes? The point being that the movie Gravity is not science fiction, so the fact that some sources say it is means nothing more than that they are wrong. The idea of using sources which are known to be wrong is just ... well ... wrong! I would also like to point out that Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information so surely the objective here is to supply correct information and the correct information is that Gravity is not science fiction.

2. People are arguing that the movie has science in it but it doesn't. The Space Shuttle is not science, it is engineering. The Hubble Telescope is not science, it is engineering. There is no science in the movie. If you disagree with this assertion though and say that the Space Shuttle is science, then surely an aeroplane is science too and therefore Cast Away should be classified as a science fiction movie because it involves science - an aeroplane (wing design etc. rely on science) - and a guy who gets stranded as a result of it, after which he uses science to keep himself alive (he makes fire, performs dentistry, makes friends with a ball made of scientifically manufactured material etc.), builds a raft (building a floating raft requires science) and eventually escapes. If you say that Gravity contains science then you are basically saying that every movie ever made contains science and therefore every movie every made is science fiction. Now you might argue that the Space Shuttle and the Hubble Telescope were designed and built for scientific purposes - and that is certainly true - but they aren't being used for scientific purposes in the movie, their use as scientific instruments is completely irrelevant to story, and as such the movie is not science fiction.

FillsHerTease (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated answer, FHT:

1) If (and only if) you can reach consensus that the current crop of sources is "looney tunes", then yes, your comparison to 9/11 is relevant. But I fear the opposite is much more likely: that the consensus instead is that our current selection is correctly mirroring the general view: that Gravity really is described as a sci fi movie by a significant number of good sources (mainstream movie news magazines).

Your thoughts on sources using words "wrong" is an interesting topic in itself (my view is that the way a word is used defines its correct usage) but we'll have to discuss that elsewhere. In the meanwhile, I am afraid Wikipedia counts your (or my) opinion as "original research" unless we're published in a "good source". The definition of sci fi simply isn't as stringent as you might wish it to be, and ultimately: it is not Wikipedia's job to change how and where "sci fi" as a label is applied. In short: Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows.

2) First, "science" <> "science fiction". They're completely different labels. Nobody is claiming Gravity has science in it, they're just claiming it to be science fiction :) Second, you seem to labor under the misinterpretation that a work can't be sci fi unless it has "science" in it, which is clearly an unsupportable position to me. I think (but feel free to correct me) your argument is really that the movie only depicts current, rather than future, tech, and so isn't sci fi. But again, this boils down to the (from your perspective) unfortunate fact that movie genres really have no other useful definition that "what people use to call films" :)

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't apologise for the belated response. By amazing coincidence this is the first time I have checked back here so it's perfect actually!

1) Yep, fair enough, you are right. Half of me knows and loves the fact that language - especially English - is fluid and ever changing. The other half of me gets frustrated sometimes when words which have very specific meanings - such as 'plethora', or 'penultimate', or 'decimate' - lose their specific meanings because it results in a loss of clarity. That, to me, is what is -or rather has - happened with the term Science Fiction. So many things are lumped under it now that it is in no way helpful as a genre description. That seems a shame to me.

Actually, I consider "science fiction" a much much looser term than say plethora or decimate. For plethora, yes, you can debate whether it's correct to use it for an abundance of something as opposed to only an excessive amount. But "science fiction" has never had a strict definition anywhere near as close as "decimate" specifically meaning removing one out of ten. Looking at half a dozen definitions of the term, works of the genre may depict space and spaceships, discuss science in society, describe imaginary scientific developments, alien life or even time travel. Or they may not. Thus the only useful definition to me becomes "science fiction is whatever people call science fiction" :-). But now I'm veering dangerously out of scope for this talk page, so I'll stop here.

Do note that Wikipedia doesn't make this (or any other) definition, it's just me: while it may appear as if Wikipedia is taking a stance, it really isn't. Wikipedia doesn't care for definitions (truth), it only cares what people says (verifiability). As editors, we don't assign films to genre slots, we reference people who do. CapnZapp (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

2) I take your point but I don't think I am under a misinterpretation. Go to the Definitions of science fiction article and read the definitions there, many of which come from the people who invented and popularised the genre. I can't fathom how you can say that science fiction doesn't have to have science in it and would love to debate that with you further but clearly this is not the forum for that. I say that science fiction not only has to have science in it but that the science also has to be integral to the story, in the sense that the story couldn't occur without it, and all the big names in science fiction seem to agree with me. This, at the core, is my whole problem. The people who invented and popularised the science fiction genre would not call Gravity science fiction. A group of movie review websites do though. It seems crazy to me that the latter is the one who holds sway here but that's just how it is I suppose.FillsHerTease (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason you feel frustrated is, I think, because Wikipedia isn't the project you think it is. What I or you think is completely and utterly beside the point. I am certainly not going to read any definitions - not because I think your suggestion is unreasonable, mind you! - but because it would be original research for me to apply any conclusions of what I learn there. In fact, even what a reputable expert thinks is also irrelevant unless 1) he or she is published in a good source 2) and is specifically discussing Gravity, the film (as opposed to the general term).

The simple truth is that movie review sites aren't run by "experts", they're run by what some might call "ignorant journos" :-). If I allow myself to speculate, I suspect Gravity is labeled sci fi because... what else? Problem is, unless these reputable experts speak out, denouncing the improper labeling of Gravity as a sci fi flick (to use dramatic language), and get our sources to change their mind, Wikipedia certainly isn't going to do it for them. And the reason this hasn't happened is - I bet - because the definition really isn't very strict at all (unlike, say, the original definition of "decimate"). Myself, I suspect that if Wikipedia and its consensus will ever change, it isn't because of any single authority - it will be because the movie gets reevaluated with time; this changing mindset eventually reaching the editor positions of our sources too... Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to twist the knife or anything, but having read your linked page, I must say that several of the definitions offered describe Gravity perfectly, so I'm afraid I feel your case truly is an impossible one. Just a few:

"a literary genre whose necessary and sufficient conditions are the presence and interaction of estrangement and cognition, and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the author's empirical environment." (Suvin). Estrangement and cognition is certainly present, and space travel qualifies as something quite different to Cuarzon's own environment (a film studio back on Earth).
Heinlein's five points: 1) that the conditions that make space different from here-and-now has never been more vividly presented to an audience is one of the drawing points of Gravity 2) being stranded in space is certainly essential to the story 3) I hope you agree with me that Gravity focuses on the human problem (as opposed to, say, the accounting side of wrecking so much very expensive equipment :-) 4) "Bullock, meet space" is the plot, yes... and 5) the way Neil DeGrasse Tyson & Co is discussing that some established facts are violated is generally taken as evidence that the movie upholds this criteria in general
"Science fiction is [or means] what we point to when we say it." :-)
"Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible." (Rod Serling)
"Science fiction is a form of fantastic fiction which exploits the imaginative perspectives of modern science" (Pringle)

I could go on, but you get the point. Just to be safe, a friendly reminder: the article isn't saying what I or any other editor think, so please don't devolve this discussion into argument whether I'm wrong or not, as that's completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. The above is offered only and merely as illustration to the subject question: "why is gravity classified as Scifi?": as a way of saying "because enough publications thought it a useful label to use". Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think Wikipedia is something other than what it is. If I did I wouldn't have agreed with you and stopped arguing that a change should be made. I never said that I thought the term Science Fiction was as specific as the words 'plethora', 'decimate' and 'penultimate', I just said that they are examples of terms which have lost their original meaning. As for getting the point from your examples off the linked article, no I don't get the point at all. You've picked a small handful of definitions from the page, none of which support your argument. Heinlein's point 1 does not mean here-and-now as in a place; such as space as opposed to Earth. If it did then the movie Cast Away should be classified as Science Fiction because it meets all the requirements (a desert island no one goes to is not the here-and-now as much as space is). The second one is more of a comparison between Science Fiction and Fantasy, rather than a definition of Science Fiction in it's on right. The third one is patently ridiculous and I'm sure that's why you put a smiley. The fourth one refers to exploiting the imaginative perspectives of modern science. Fine, but as I've said Gravity does not involve science. It involves some engineering technologies which were designed for scientific purposes - such as the shuttle - but those things are not being used in a scientific fashion during the movie and therefore don't meet the definition. If you think they do then once again Cast Away is Science Fiction because an aeroplane is every bit as scientific as the shuttle (there would have been no shuttle with the aeroplane). The vast majority of the definitions on the page are variations on the way I defined Science Fiction. I am not frustrated because Wikipedia is not the project I think it is. I am frustrated because sometimes you find that two Wikipedia articles contradict one another - as they do in this case - and I don't think that is the intention of Wikipedia. Exactly as you said, Gravity is being defined as Science Fiction by people who aren't experts but it is those people's opinions which are being used as the basis of fact in this article. In the mean time the linked article I provided contradicts this article with a large number of definitions which ARE written by experts. I find that frustrating but, as I said, I understand that's the way things work. I am simply pointing out that there is, in my opinion, something wrong when one article links to another and the linked page contradicts what the original page said. In closing, here is the definition of Science Fiction from the Oxford English Dictionary: "Fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets". But they're just the 'keepers' of the English language so what would they know??? ;-) Oh and by the way, a number of journalists have labelled Gravity as a Horror movie and it certainly fits than genre better than Science Fiction so shouldn't we update the page to say that it is Science Fiction/Thriller/Horror? As far as twisting the knife goes, the final nail in the coffin surely has to be the fact that Alfonso Cuaron - the Writer and Director of the movie - says that the movie is not Science Fiction. Surely that trumps any journalists (especially when they aren't experts as you pointed out)??? FillsHerTease (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the Capn has already covered the extensive WP policy reasons for categorizing the film as Sci Fi, I just wanted to add to the more subjective end of it that the whole film is essentially the launching point for a near future Sci Fi story (that would essentially begin after Bukllock's character was on the ground). Some of the tech they are talking about before the fit hits the shan in the first part of the story don't actually exist yet, so sci fi. And that micro meateor storm that causes the entirety of the film to exist? It wiped out the Earths entire satelite network. That's so sci fi I can't stand it (and allso poor us on the ground because we're super screwed). I just wanted to throw that out there as an alternate way of looking at the events of the film in case the topic comes up again. It's not the first near future sci fi series I've seen focus on something else while floating the more conventionally viewed as sci fi themes into the background. But I see why, in this case, people struggle with grokking the label, even though I do not. Millahnna (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Talking about some future technology for a future story is not Science Fiction. That new new story might well be Science Fiction but Gravity isn't. A meteor storm hitting satellites is not science fiction. If you think it is then which part of it is science? None. And that explains exactly why people mistakenly think Gravity is Science Fiction. There are a lot of stories where meteors destroy things but in those stories science then gets involved to solve the problem. That's why meteors destroying satellites appears, at first glance, to be science fiction. But it isn't until science becomes involved. In the same way, almost all movies that involve space are Science Fiction and that's why people's first reaction is to say that Gravity is Science Fiction too. But it isn't because science does not become involved. I think you don't have trouble grokking the label (great word use by the way) because, with all due respect, your definition of Science Fiction is wrong, as you can see from the definition page I have shown. Alfonso Cuaron groks the definition though because he says the movie is not Science Fiction. So on the one hand we have a Wiki article with definitions of Science Fiction - from some of the greats in the field - which contradicts this article, standing alongside the writer and director of the film. On the other hand we have SOME (not all) journalists who define it as Science Fiction.FillsHerTease (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Answer Because its a fictional story with science in it. Duh.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I view that as a condescendingly simplifying answer, and I would like to ask you to read the previous discussion where I hope to have shown that genre assignment is far from a trivial matter. Furthermore, can I ask you to embrace the fact that newcomers to Wikipedia often have real, understandable, difficulties understanding its policies; in this case specifically how inappropriate it would be for you or me to perform genre assignment by our own judgement. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sci-fi or not sci-fi, again

Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

Both references for Gravity as "space thriller" really list the movie as "Genre: Sci-Fi Thriller" (Mojo) and "SCIENCE FICTION" (reelviews). No matter how much you want the world to see this movie as something else than science fiction, as long as sources say it's science fiction, we say it's science fiction. CapnZapp (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The film is either set in an alternative 'now' reality; or set in the future by a few years (from the revived Shuttle program, and with Tiangong being pretty finished). Either way, that's science fiction. Or at the very least science faction. The Yeti (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There can be made many arguments why "Gravity" is or isn't science fiction. The only question relevant to editing this article, however, is: "What genre do our cited sources say it is?" Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfonso Cuarón in two (maybe more) interviews has referred to the film as work of fiction. (I am not going to go looking for those interviews right now.) That's about as an objective classification with a point of reference as one can point too. There seem to be a whole host of reviewers and sites classifying the film as science fiction. I am thinking of science fiction in the classical SF prose type, since in the last 40 years , or so, there has been a drift towards conceiving of SF (I still hate Sci-Fi, being an old long time reader) in its visual drama form , especially film and TV. These media have rarely captured the spirit or the sophisticated form of prose science fiction, so there are a lot of odd concepts of what the term science fiction means. I think the science fiction writer Damon Knight said it best in 1953:

" At the start of a series of book review columns, Knight stated the following as one of his assumptions: "That the term 'science fiction' is a misnomer, that trying to get two enthusiasts to agree on a definition of it leads only to bloody knuckles; that better labels have been devised (Heinlein's suggestion, 'speculative fiction', is the best, I think), but that we're stuck with this one; and that it will do us no particular harm if we remember that, like 'The Saturday Evening Post', it means what we point to when we say it." This definition is now usually seen in abbreviated form as "Science fiction is [or means] what we point to when we say it." Check Definitions of Science Fiction right here on Wikipedia.aajacksoniv (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I already indicated further up, existing Definitions of science fiction do not conflict with either the general consensus out there or that of the plot itself. There are now 3 different sections here on genre operating concurrently. This matter should be closed already. -- Jodon | Talk 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Closed and closed, in none of the sections there is a consensual decision to NOT describe the film as sci fi. Until such time, we help out by reverting the frequent removals, and we continue to allow people to weigh in here on the talk page. Not sure how much more closure you need? I don't see how we can come to a final decision where no more discussion is needed; after all, in one year's time (or ten) perhaps consensus shifts to not generally describe it as sci-fi any more, and then (and only then) we update our article accordingly. As you yourself say, there is no way we can objectively state it is or is not sci fi - it is all up to what labels the world in general chooses for it; we only reflect our sources. (Hope this was relevant to your comment, and have a nice day! :-) CapnZapp (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Many critics call it science fiction, many call it other things such as survival tale set in space, space drama, and so on. It seems to me that the solution is to acknowledge the difference of opinion up front. Awien (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that any difference of opinion is usually guided by an initial ignorance of how broad the definition of science fiction actually is. Space drama is a sub genre of science fiction, and separating the 2 as if they were autonomous is as absurd as ordering both a chicken salad and a chicken on the side. -- Jodon | Talk 17:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

But that too depends on whose definition of science fiction you accept, and it isn't ignorance to buy into one of the narrower ones. There simply isn't one clear, generally-accepted definition, and that's something we can't take sides on here. Awien (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would start with Wikipedia's definition, then these definitions from respected science fiction authors, and then go onto science fiction film reference books, not to mention Googling definitions. Whatever the commonalites are between all of those can be certainly be regarded as a general consensus, and dare I say it, an absolute definition. But of course all of that might just be too much like hard work for someone who wishes to invent their own definition. -- Jodon | Talk 18:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

All good advice, except it is not our job to do this. That intro text doesn't label the movie "science fiction" because us editors are convinced it is science fiction. That intro text simply reports the labels used by the references we cite. If you believe this to be a mistake, you will need to find good sources that use a different label and reach consensus that those sources are more representative than the ones used right now. (Please note: everything I just said is my personal opinion only as a regular editor, and you should look up relevant wikipedia policies yourself before acting on my reply) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is to be considered an alternate history because it depicts a fictional shuttle mission, and therefor qualifies as science fiction, then we would have to classify Horatio Hornblower as a science fiction series because no such officer existed during the Napoleonic wars (although it was based in part on the exploits of Thomas Cochrane, British Navy) so it must have been an alternate reality.

Certainly "Hunt for Red October" must be considered a science fiction because it's fiction, the ships involved never existed in our reality, and it involves a speculative technology. Yet it is not. It's classified as a Techno-Thriller.

This is not nick picking about what science fiction is. It's that there are no consistent grounds for classifying this movie as a science fiction without blatant contradictions. Sure, you can call a tomato a vegetable and market it as a vegetable, but it's still a berry.

So in the end, stories, be they movie, theater, TV, book or audio drama, will be sold as whatever marketing says they are. But as Galileo Galilei was rumored to have said after acquiescing to the Inquisition's insistence that the earth was the center of creation, "and yet it moves."

User:50.47.1.65 (editor attribution added by CapnZapp (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC))

OK. The article cites NASA astronaut Michael J. Massimino. Since he serviced the Hubble from the Space Shuttle he is not only a source, but also a more qualified source than even a long list of media that cannot tell 'Fiction + Space' from 'Science-Fiction'. Taking into account the quotes from Neil deGrasse Tyson regarding the several technical inaccuracies of the film only serves to classify the film as a technically imperfect film regarding current technology in space. Thus also the quotes from Neil deGrasse Tyson implicitly speaks against the film as 'Science-Fiction'. So just because a number of sources have to come to grips with the fact that not all films regarding 'Fiction + Space' are 'Science-Fiction' does not prevent wikipedia from giving more weight to a few actually competent sources on the topic. Lklundin (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of "techno-thrillers" (e.g. Tom Clancy) that posit weapons systems, computers, bio weapons, etc. far in advance of reality (or plausibility). They aren't called SF, though they could be. This film has no speculative science or technology in it at all, all the ships are supposed to be ones that actually exist, there is no part of the plot that depends of imagined science and hardware. In short "space fiction" is not necessarily "science fiction". It usually is, because film makers usually feel free to make up crap when they get into space. Artificial gravity in ships, sound in space, super speed, etc. Gravity has some dodgy orbital mechanics, but most car chase movies have worse physics. Anyway, I see that the article now calls it "science fiction thriller" citing some idiots at a film magazine. How about citing some authorities on science fiction? Here for instance ins a long review of Gravity by the respectable SF magazine Locus. It never once calls the film SF, he actually says it's a "spacesuit film". (Not that I want to advocate that term.) It's a space film. A film set in space. Not SF. 202.81.243.53 (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For sure it is science fiction. Her tear was floating around in zero gravity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B4ben24 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It's both in my view, sci fi and possibility what could happen.--Oxforduniversity1 (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

[2] ttp://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html

[3] ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/heres-what-gravity-gets-right-and-wrong-about-space/

[1] ttp://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html

[4] [3]

[5] [4]

[1]

[cite 1]

[cite 2]

[2]

[3]

Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive 2

Contents

Scientific Accuracy: Kowalski letting go

Short film on the DVD

British or American, or both?

(non-scientific) accuracy

time for automatic archiving

Internet Backlash / Critical Concept Reception

Reader feedback: sufficient overall though th...

Science accuracy: shuttle spinning

Greenlit

Top 10 (static) or Top 100 (dynamic)

See Also Cleanup

See also

Discussion

Speed Sequel?

June Cleanup

Kowalski's Suggestion

why is gravity classified as Scifi?

Sci-fi or not sci-fi, again