If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   Gravity is the #1 film in America for the 3rd week in a row, and Carrie slaughters its way to #2, with Captain Philips a close #3. And it was no secret the Julian Assange biopic The Fifth Estate was going to bomb, earning a paltry $1.7 million   (deadline.com) divider line 94
    More: Followup, social media, humans, gravity, Laura Dern, last stand, Undercover Boss, Alfonso Cuaron, Screen Gems  
•       •       •

922 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 20 Oct 2013 at 11:29 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-20 05:34:15 PM

foo monkey: He wasn't stopped. He was continuing to pull her and stress the parachute lines. If he were stopped, the lines wouldn't have continued to slip off her leg. If he'd held on, they would have slipped off. If he'd given a little tug, it would have increased the stress and cause the lines to slip off.


Yeah, and that's all bullshiat physics. Space does not work that way. There's "that's not quite how it works" and then there's "it works the completely opposite to that." They only did it so that Cloon-tang could have the most cheesy, self-indulgent sacrificial death I've ever seen. I was expecting him to strike a "on the cross" pose as he floated away..

wichitaleaf: Not every movie has to be a documentary.


I didn't want it to be, I just didn't want the main characters to be so unlikeable that I stopped caring if they lived.
 
2013-10-20 05:41:22 PM

It's Me Bender: why would anyone watch Carrie?  The trailer has the entire plot.


Never read the book nor saw the other versions or the trailer for the new one

The movie was decent enough but I had low expectations not to mention it was a last minute coin flip for me between that or Don Jon. If it wasn't for the lead actress, it would've been a stinker.
 
2013-10-20 05:48:22 PM

Mentalpatient87: foo monkey: He wasn't stopped. He was continuing to pull her and stress the parachute lines. If he were stopped, the lines wouldn't have continued to slip off her leg. If he'd held on, they would have slipped off. If he'd given a little tug, it would have increased the stress and cause the lines to slip off.

Yeah, and that's all bullshiat physics. Space does not work that way. There's "that's not quite how it works" and then there's "it works the completely opposite to that." They only did it so that Cloon-tang could have the most cheesy, self-indulgent sacrificial death I've ever seen. I was expecting him to strike a "on the cross" pose as he floated away..

wichitaleaf: Not every movie has to be a documentary.

I didn't want it to be, I just didn't want the main characters to be so unlikeable that I stopped caring if they lived.


a stinker.

I hated Gravity for the same reason, I had high expectations for this one but was disappointed with the hamfisted melodrama and clearly politicized ending (China would never allow the film in their borders if the Shuttle or Soyuz vehicles bought her home).
 
2013-10-20 05:54:35 PM

Teetotaler: a stinker.


Well no, not really. I'm griping, but I liked the movie overall. I just didn't leave it thinking "wow, what an experience!"
 
2013-10-20 06:53:34 PM
I was going to see Captain Phillips but then I read that the story is BS.
 
2013-10-20 06:58:35 PM
Mentalpatient87:
Well no, not really. I'm griping, but I liked the movie overall. I just didn't leave it thinking "wow, what an experience!"

I apologize for putting words in your mouth then. I did like the cinematography but little else.
 
2013-10-20 07:03:17 PM
Apos:Steve McQueen is dead

I;d only watch the new Carrie if Travolta got killed in it
 
2013-10-20 07:35:57 PM

Raw_fishFood: I honestly do not get all the love for Gravity. Clooney was just Clooney in space, Bullock was just a tragic backstory, and while it looked really pretty there wasn't much depth to it.


Yeah, the casting just ruined it.
 
2013-10-20 07:42:32 PM

Carth: I didn't think it was a bad movie. I as actually impressed they managed to make a decent PG-13 zombie movie even if it has nothing to do with the novel. I think it was also generally well reviewed so some people must have liked it.


All the reviews I read/saw were basically: it's not as bad as we thought it was going to be, which is what I would call "damning with faint praise".
 
2013-10-20 07:49:37 PM

E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease: Apos:Steve McQueen is dead

I;d only watch the new Carrie if Travolta got killed in it


Not the black one.
 
2013-10-20 07:49:50 PM

Fano: Looks like someone did see 6 Souls


I'm in that movie.
 
2013-10-20 08:45:05 PM

Uncle Pooky: I was going to see Captain Phillips but then I read that the story is BS.


Yeah, I felt the same way about The Avengers.
 
2013-10-20 08:46:26 PM

Mentalpatient87: Yeah, and that's all bullshiat physics. Space does not work that way. There's "that's not quite how it works" and then there's "it works the completely opposite to that." They only did it so that Cloon-tang could have the most cheesy, self-indulgent sacrificial death I've ever seen. I was expecting him to strike a "on the cross" pose as he floated away..


Oh boohoo ... There are 9000 technical things wrong with the movie (like the fact that Hubble and ISS space station are even remotely close in orbit to each other) and you chose to focus on this one scene.  Why?  Its a fark'n drama.  And a very good one.  Just let it go.  The problem is you. Not the movie.

/you must be awesome at parties
 
2013-10-20 10:20:16 PM
I don't know what film you haters watched, 'cause Gravity was pretty awesome.  Greatly enjoyed it.
 
2013-10-20 10:24:00 PM
I see the 'hate something that's popular' date has finally arrived for "Gravity". Surprised it actually took this long.
 
2013-10-20 10:50:02 PM
They should have made the dream sequence be real...

At that point, I didn't see her character have the brains or training to figure anything out.
 
2013-10-20 11:18:43 PM

It's Me Bender: why would anyone watch Carrie?  The trailer has the entire plot.


Mainly, it's almost literally a shot-for-shot remake of the original, with actors that aren't quite as good and a director that apparently told the girl to try to channel Magneto from X-Men 3 during all the action scenes even though that makes the exact opposite of sense.

So... why not just rent the original and watch that?  It's better even side-by-side in every respect.  Yes, the old one even has better special effects, and yes I'm using modern standards.

sloshyj: I don't know what film you haters watched, 'cause Gravity was pretty awesome.  Greatly enjoyed it.


It's a good movie, the conceit that it's scientifically literate or in any way even remotely realistic is a straight-up lie, though.  It doesn't really matter how many hours you put into researching what order the buttons are in in the capsule if the fundamental premise of your movie (everything important in space being in the same orbit and within easy sight of each other) is completely absurd in every way.

So... yeah, if I'd watched it in a vacuum without having heard all the grandiose and dramatically incorrect things the advertising and interviews and so on had claimed about it, I'd be more inclined to call it "very good" instead of "good enough I guess".
 
2013-10-21 03:01:56 AM

gingerjet: Oh boohoo


I seem to have offended you, I am sorry.
 
2013-10-21 07:50:42 AM
Gravity spoiler

- by the end of that show it should have been called Everything That Can Go Wrong Will Go Wrong. By the water scene when she swam into the seaweed instead of around it, I was actively laughing without guffawing and disturbing the other watchers. I think. Anyway, it was almost an excellent film. But seriously, no way someone with her Disturbed Past should be let into space.
 
2013-10-21 08:32:03 AM

Jim_Callahan: So... why not just rent the original and watch that?  It's better even side-by-side in every respect.  Yes, the old one even has better special effects, and yes I'm using modern standards.


The 1999 one wasn't bad. More goth. It's funny, when no one had VCRs or Netflix or any other way to see movies after they left theaters there were a lot less remakes. Now a movie has to be remade every 10 years or so.
 
2013-10-21 08:34:23 AM
Who even bothered to watch The Fifth Estate outside of Michael Moore? The film tries to paint him as a hero, even though the REAL guy behind the Wikileaks documents (that Manning guy-shemale-whatever) got the shaft and consequences, while Assage ran away with the accolades and not one glance of jail time.
Just like 'Social Network', films about farking websites just ain't gonna get me excited. Unless they do a $200 million dollar Milfhunter movie with all the 80's action/Australian grindhouse action included.
 
2013-10-21 08:56:03 AM

kling_klang_bed: Who even bothered to watch The Fifth Estate outside of Michael Moore? The film tries to paint him as a hero, even though the REAL guy behind the Wikileaks documents (that Manning guy-shemale-whatever) got the shaft and consequences, while Assage ran away with the accolades and not one glance of jail time.
Just like 'Social Network', films about farking websites just ain't gonna get me excited. Unless they do a $200 million dollar Milfhunter movie with all the 80's action/Australian grindhouse action included.


If you think The Social Network was about a website, then I'm sorry to say you missed a really interesting movie.  The website was the McGuffin but the real story is character based.
 
2013-10-21 09:09:06 AM
Eh, didn't quite catch my fancy. Sadly, I'm the only one who feels that way that I know of.
 
2013-10-21 09:36:57 AM

fdlgrl: But seriously, no way someone with her Disturbed Past should be let into space.


NASA's vetting process for who goes into space isn't the best.  Remember the woman who drove cross states in a diaper after going off the rails.

Gravity is an incredibly well-done film, but ultimately didn't grab me the way I expected it to.  It didn't help that I wanted all the characters to die.
 
2013-10-21 09:40:57 AM
I bet Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were fans of the original Carrie.
 
2013-10-21 10:10:15 AM
No release dat for Filth in the US is see
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1450321/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt

Pity it is the best Irvine Welsh movie since Trainspotting and James McAvoy is fantastic in it.
 
2013-10-21 10:17:56 AM

Mentalpatient87: I'm still hung up on how disappointed I was with Gravity, and I'm gonna rant about it for a bit with a few SPOILERS. I saw the trailer months ago, I was excited as hell. I wanted to like this movie so bad, and I really did for the first bit. Then the action started happening, which was still cool. What killed it for me were Clooney, his godawful death, and Bullock.

Clooney got just a bit too smarmy, and there was no reason for him to even die at all. She had him, he was stopped, just tug back and he's on a trajectory to safety! This is the only technical issue I'm gonna gripe about, I don't care that they took other shortcuts. If they really needed him to croak, they should have had him zinged by some space junk. The "let me go, I'm sacrificing myself for you" monologue thing was just... ugh. Shut the fark up, George Clooney. I can't even remember the character's name because he was just Clooneyed up to 11.

Aaand Stone, Sandra Bullock. The Space Rookie. Serious question: why is she in space? How did she go from a nurse with a dead kid that only "works, sleeps, and drives" to repairing the Hubble? Why did whatever motivation she gained in that buffer time suddenly evaporate when shiat went down? Who the fark didn't even let this woman play some Kerbals before strapping her into a rocket? She was just so damn wishy-washy, it made me not care. The urgency of her getting back to safety was dampened by the fact that I would have been okay with her not making it.


You can also look on it as that she didn't make it.  Everything was an oxygen deprived brain dream.  she actually burned up in the atmosphere and her last thoughts were of her walking on some beach with no civilization around.
 
2013-10-21 10:23:36 AM
Nah, back it up before that. She never turned the O2 back on. I like that, giving up and dying was more fit for her character.
 
2013-10-21 10:38:58 AM

kling_klang_bed: Who even bothered to watch The Fifth Estate outside of Michael Moore? The film tries to paint him as a hero, even though the REAL guy behind the Wikileaks documents (that Manning guy-shemale-whatever) got the shaft and consequences, while Assage ran away with the accolades and not one glance of jail time.
Just like 'Social Network', films about farking websites just ain't gonna get me excited. Unless they do a $200 million dollar Milfhunter movie with all the 80's action/Australian grindhouse action included.


Having just now gotten around to seeing We Sell Secrets I've had my fill of Assange
 
2013-10-21 12:25:35 PM

gingerjet: Its a fark'n drama. And a very good one.


It was a terrible drama. There was no reason whatsoever to care about any of the characters, the next goal was always clearly laid out and the dangers telegraphed, and even within the visible movie the characters' personalities and personal goals were largely irrelevant...in a movie where the only real 'danger' was from something utterly impossible/implausible (and many of the solutions were equally stupid).
 
2013-10-21 12:33:40 PM

Brigandaca: No release dat for Filth in the US is see
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1450321/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt

Pity it is the best Irvine Welsh movie since Trainspotting and James McAvoy is fantastic in it.


did they work in the tapeworm into the movie?
 
2013-10-21 12:47:21 PM

sprawl15: gingerjet: Its a fark'n drama. And a very good one.

It was a terrible drama. There was no reason whatsoever to care about any of the characters, the next goal was always clearly laid out and the dangers telegraphed, and even within the visible movie the characters' personalities and personal goals were largely irrelevant...in a movie where the only real 'danger' was from something utterly impossible/implausible (and many of the solutions were equally stupid).


Gravity isn't a movie about the characters.  It's about space and what it's like to try to function and survive in that utterly unfamiliar and hostile environment.  The characters are merely props to show this.
 
2013-10-21 12:58:35 PM

Persnickety: It's about space and what it's like to try to function and survive in that utterly unfamiliar and hostile environment.


And they got space utterly farking wrong. That's the problem, it's shiat science as justification for shiat drama.

At best, it's The Onion's Area Man's interpretation of what Space is like. Last I checked, you don't send a farking nurse to work on the Hubble which happens to be in LEO and also within very short distance of two space stations which all happen to also be at a very high orbit with all the communications satellites that went out.

The shiatty characters would have been fine if it was actually an interesting journey, like Apollo 13's continual pulling of rabbits out of NASA's ass to get the crew back to Earth. You didn't need to know all the crew's motivations and backstories and whatever, because it was actually about space. Gravity focused far too hard on Bullock's rebirth allegory to have that excuse.
 
2013-10-21 02:37:38 PM
Yeah? Well, I saw Escape Plan.
 
2013-10-21 03:29:06 PM

sprawl15: Persnickety: It's about space and what it's like to try to function and survive in that utterly unfamiliar and hostile environment.

And they got space utterly farking wrong. That's the problem, it's shiat science as justification for shiat drama.


Disagree.  I'd say they got most of the science right wrt what space is like.  The movie showcased what a gravity free, atmosphere free environment was like.


At best, it's The Onion's Area Man's interpretation of what Space is like. Last I checked, you don't send a farking nurse to work on the Hubble which happens to be in LEO and also within very short distance of two space stations which all happen to also be at a very high orbit with all the communications satellites that went out.

Aaaaaand none that has to do with space being a hostile, gravity free environment.  I don't care where the satellites really are.  They're just props too.  Space is cold, unforgiving, and the rules and assumptions that we all work with and take for granted here on earth just don't apply.  I've never seen a movie demonstrate how completely disconcerting and frankly terrifying that can be.  Yes, they took poetic license with uninteresting things like distances and orbitals heights.  That's not what they were focusing on so I didn't really care.


The shiatty characters would have been fine if it was actually an interesting journey, like Apollo 13's continual pulling of rabbits out of NASA's ass to get the crew back to Earth. You didn't need to know all the crew's motivations and backstories and whatever, because it was actually about space. Gravity focused far too hard on Bullock's rebirth allegory to have that excuse.

Not really.  You can't spend that much time with a character and not find out something about him or her.   Ultimately, I'd say we understand her character as well as we understood Dave in 2001 A Sapce Odyssey, and that was sufficient for the movie.
 
2013-10-21 03:57:48 PM

Infernalist: Popularity =/= Quality


Oh STFU. I didnt think it was that great either, but I'm not a smug asshole about it. Does that farking statement have to appear in every movie thread? When the goal of the farking  movie is to MAKE farkING MONEY, popularity does indeed equal quality.
 
2013-10-21 03:58:44 PM

WhyteRaven74: It's Me Bender: why would anyone watch Carrie? The trailer has the entire plot.

Some people are saying this remake is better than the original


nope. no way.
 
2013-10-21 04:06:23 PM

Uncle Pooky: I was going to see Captain Phillips but then I read that the story is BS.


I've read this too. Which actually makes me want to see it more, strangely. A great performance in a work of, shall we say, historical fiction? Sound intriguing. Oddly enough, it supposedly being about true events was my greatest aversion.
 
2013-10-21 04:37:29 PM

Persnickety: Yes, they took poetic license with uninteresting things like distances and orbitals heights.


And the issues with intercept velocities (the speed of the Soyuz bled off by a fire extinguisher sprayed randomly), and the issues with the whole "you have to let me die to save yourself" situation being physically impossible, the issues with the basic premise for being in space (we need to put medical software on the Hubble and nobody knows it but a nurse), etc.

But a long litany of utterly stupid and juvenile nonsense (in both premise and overcoming the premise) to make a movie about how someone nobody cares about can get disoriented in zero G is not A Good Movie. It's like trying to make a serious movie about the issues involved with ocean travel in the 1800's and including an attack by a sea serpent and trying to make the captain an allegory for Moses.

Persnickety: Not really.


Yes, really. Gravity was ultimately about a character. The rebirth of Bullock's character, most obviously telegraphed with her Learning To Let Go Of Clooney (and her kid) and then immediately after getting into the airlock floating into a fetal position with the safety cord as an umbilical cord. It was nominally about her learning to let go of the past and doing what needed to be done and developing a will to live. Just like the hallucination of Clooney was about...well, the same thing, I guess. And her giggling breakdown was realizing that she has so much to live for that she doesn't care if she dies because she lived enough.

But it did all that without bothering to meaningfully build a past, without meaningfully constructing motivations, without meaningfully constructing a goal or a purpose. That's part of why the movie is so muddled - the idea of the characters is lost in the idea of showing disorientation. The idea of the dangers of space is undermined by setting it in a wackyland caricature of space to drive action. It's trying to be all these things as WELL as a study of 'space is scary', and they're like turds floating in an otherwise pretty good bowl of soup.

The movie could have been vastly improved by cutting all of the protagonist (and other astronauts') dialogue and personalities entirely and showing the entirety of the movie from a first person view. Just one person struggling to live against the horrors of shiat going wrong and emphasizing the horrors and disorientation (on top of the other improvement of going the other way like Apollo 13 where it was more about the struggle, the ingenuity, the human spirit in the face of adversity and coping with space on its own very real terms, like the LiOH shortage).
 
2013-10-21 06:01:59 PM
Gravity spoilers:


The "SpaceCamp class of '87" me was shooting arcing ropes of jizz over the depiction of space and crazy long shots.  I thought the characters were secondary and I was surprised by how little I cared about them, especially because I wanted to like everything about this movie.

Other than everything having the same orbit within sight of each other thing, the only "mistake" that I caught was Bullock's tears drifting up at the camera.  It makes for good drama, but this NASA video shows what would have really happened.

I gave my 11 year old non-sci-fi fan daughter a quick crash course on Newtonian Laws of Motion on the way to the theater and her only commentary about the movie was:  "I wanted Sandra Bullock to die".
 
2013-10-21 06:16:40 PM

STRYPERSWINE: I gave my 11 year old non-sci-fi fan daughter a quick crash course on Newtonian Laws of Motion on the way to the theater and her only commentary about the movie was: "I wanted Sandra Bullock to die".


I was hoping she'd fall over and bang her head on a rock.

STRYPERSWINE: the only "mistake" that I caught was Bullock's tears drifting up at the camera


When Bullock lets go of Clooney, they're in a steady state - all forces are balanced. Clooney is basically saying that if she pulls on him, she'll pull herself out of the rope (which is when it slipped from 'mostly on the leg' to 'barely on the foot'). When he lets go, they rubberband apart despite no possible force being conveyed via tension on a canvas cable. If the parachute cables were elastic, then they would have pulled Clooney back in without her needing to pull at all. If they weren't, then Clooney would have forever sat a couple feet outside the Soyuz. Somehow he had an outward force that remained despite being held rigid by the cables which were a little bit elastic and reacted to the reduction in that force by pulling Bullock in after he let go.

Also, the retrograde burn of a fire extinguisher for a few seconds was enough to bleed off the excess velocity of the Soyuz' landing pulse.
 
2013-10-21 08:12:00 PM

sprawl15: Persnickety: Yes, they took poetic license with uninteresting things like distances and orbitals heights.

And the issues with intercept velocities (the speed of the Soyuz bled off by a fire extinguisher sprayed randomly), and the issues with the whole "you have to let me die to save yourself" situation being physically impossible, the issues with the basic premise for being in space (we need to put medical software on the Hubble and nobody knows it but a nurse), etc.

 Nope, not one of things bothered me in the least, although to be fair I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make about the fire extinguisher.  Not sure why letting Clooney go seemed so impossible.  The tension on a string in circular motion is directly proportional to the mass.  Reducing the mass reduces the tension.  How do you know Sanda Bullock's character was just a nurse and nothing else?  You don't and ultimately it doesn't matter.

But a long litany of utterly stupid and juvenile nonsense (in both premise and overcoming the premise) to make a movie about how someone nobody cares about can get disoriented in zero G is not A Good Movie. It's like trying to make a serious movie about the issues involved with ocean travel in the 1800's and including an attack by a sea serpent and trying to make the captain an allegory for Moses.

Persnickety: Not really.

Yes, really. Gravity was ultimately about a character. The rebirth of Bullock's character, most obviously telegraphed with her Learning To Let Go Of Clooney (and her kid) and then immediately after getting into the airlock floating into a fetal position with the safety cord as an umbilical cord. It was nominally about her learning to let go of the past and doing what needed to be done and developing a will to live. Just like the hallucination of Clooney was about...well, the same thing, I guess. And her giggling breakdown was realizing that she has so much to live for that she doesn't care if she dies because she lived enough.

But it did all that without bothering to meaningfully build a past, without meaningfully constructing motivations, without meaningfully constructing a goal or a purpose. That's part of why the movie is so muddled - the idea of the characters is lost in the idea of showing disorientation. The idea of the dangers of space is undermined by setting it in a wackyland caricature of space to drive action. It's trying to be all these things as WELL as a st ...


Again, the character thing is completely irrelevant. This is a straight up man vs. nature story here.  The character's motivations don't factor in.  And I have yet to see a more realistic portrayal of space.  If this was wackland, what must you think of every other scifi movie and tv program ever made?  Seems to me you are demanding perfection.
 
2013-10-21 09:02:22 PM

Persnickety: to be fair I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make about the fire extinguisher


Do you know what the term delta v means?

Persnickety: The tension on a string in circular motion is directly proportional to the mass.


If there was a tensional force, she wouldn't have rebounded from Clooney letting go. Also, the ease of his letting go showed that the cable between them wasn't tense - they were bodies at rest relative to the station. It was the force of her tugging on Clooney that was causing her to slip on the ropes, and if she let go they should have stayed in the same setup.

Also, ignoring the above, if there was circular motion, it would have applied to both her and Clooney - it would explain him floating away, but not her being pulled back, because that force would still be present. Draw a forces diagram; there's no way the situation as shown could have applied (even ignoring that they were clearly shown to be at rest) without a constant outward force plus rubber bands for parachute cables and Clooney providing just enough mass to tense the rubber bands and his release letting her bounce back.

Persnickety: How do you know Sanda Bullock's character was just a nurse and nothing else?


Because that's all she does. She nurses for 12 hours a day and drives during her free time. She says that. And she makes a point of saying that the stuff she's installing on the Hubble is medical in nature/origin. That's her only reason for being up there; she says that as well.

Persnickety: This is a straight up man vs. nature story here.

sprawl15: It's like trying to make a serious movie about the issues involved with ocean travel in the 1800's and including an attack by a sea serpent

Persnickety: If this was wackland, what must you think of every other scifi movie and tv program ever made? Seems to me you are demanding perfection.


If it's going to be about the dangers of space, it should be about the dangers of space. That's not asking much. Apollo 13 was about the dangers of space, and it didn't need to make the Hubble appear in the moon's orbit to have a "oh my god are they going to navigate around it" dramatic scene. They could use actual things that are actual dangers (like the LiOH shortage) to drive the dangers. And that's within the pretty severe limitations of trying to faithfully represent a true story.

I'm not "demanding perfection", I'm saying that if a movie is going to be solely defined by "man vs space" it could at least try to accurately represent space and have actual space dangers to overcome.  Space is dangerous enough to not need any salting of bullshiat.
 
2013-10-22 01:30:06 AM

sprawl15: Also, ignoring the above, if there was circular motion, it would have applied to both her and Clooney - it would explain him floating away, but not her being pulled back, because that force would still be present. Draw a forces diagram; there's no way the situation as shown could have applied (even ignoring that they were clearly shown to be at rest) without a constant outward force plus rubber bands for parachute cables and Clooney providing just enough mass to tense the rubber bands and his release letting her bounce back.


About 99% right.  Yes, in general that is correct, she shouldn't rebound, but that would assume no elasticity whatsover.  If the mass changes when there is a circular motion, provided that the moment arm is elastic, there will be some contraction of that moment arm.  Now the question is how much?  As much as in the movie, no.  Some?  Yes.  Look at it this way:  Before Clooney was released, the force exerted by the parachute balances the force of Clooney + Bullocks angular momentum: (Mc + Mb)*a = F(c+b)  After Clooney is released, assuming angular acceleration stays the same,   Mb* a = Fa

The unknown factor here is elasticity of that parachute cables (or other portions of the system).  I tend agree that for most purposes we could assume rigid cables (in the force sense, not actually rigid int he colloquial sense).  That being said what we don't know is whether there was other elasticity/force storage in the system.  Was the cable attached/hooked on a portion of the station that was deflecting enough to act as a spring?  Regardless, I largely agree with you, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility that there would be some rebound.  But the pronounce rebound seen in the file?  Probably not.

That being said, I thought compared to most of the crap we see set in space, this was pretty damn accurate.  I also thought that Bullock gave a pretty damn good performance.  Clooney was playing Clooney, but it worked, since he was supposed to be a a cocky sonofabiatch.
 
Displayed 44 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report