"Gravity": NASA Help Not Wanted
Keith’s note: As previously noted the producers of this movie did not want any NASA help and they made that very clear to NASA.
Keith’s note: As previously noted the producers of this movie did not want any NASA help and they made that very clear to NASA.
So, do you have any proof to back that statement up, with citations, please? It’s one thing to make a statement , it’s quite another thing to offer proof.
NASA Public Affairs told me this. Call them if you doubt the accuracy of what I posted. 202-358-1198. ASk for Bob Jacobs.
Just do a bit of digging on IMDb.
Strange because one of my FB friends is a consultant that worked on this movie. He has actually responded to these comments. Check the IMDB.
Just check IMDb.
This is a blog. We don’t need no stinkin facts. As Homer Simpson said: Facts, smacks. You can prove anything with facts.
Has anybody checked who the science advisor was for this film, and his employer at the time? A JPL scientist, that would be me, and at least two astronauts consulted on this.
WIll you be credited on the film as “guest?
So you are Kevin R. Grazier. Why not just say so in the first place?
Nobody checked who the science advisor was when the movie was written, or his employer. A JPL scientist (that would be me) and at least two astronauts consulted on this movie.
Is your name really “disqus_jInwuDRMSN “? I cannot find a advisor for any movie by that name.
So you are Kevin R. Grazier. Why not just say so in the first place? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm…
Proof (under “Other cast and crew”):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468
so the producers got in touch with NASA just to tell them that they didn’t want any help from NASA? Hard to make out what Keith is reporting here. Need a little more “who, what, when, where, and why”
Reporting? I think it is called “blogging”. This is just a “so what” blog entry, which is actually perfect for a blog entry.
And you are reading this blog …
Hey, I’m just saying. A blog isn’t required to have the accountability and journalistic professionalism as a mainstream media outlet. It allows for more freedom in posting. Just got your back dude!
Keith often blogs about not being given the same access as other media/journalists. I don’t think he would characterize himself as having less journalistic professionalism. His fight for access is significant: http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
Once upon a time I was more or less the only space blogger – but that was before the word “blog ” was even coined. There were no rules about non-print news sites – so we all had to make it up as we went along.
I certainly strive to be accurate, admit my mistakes, confirm my facts, protect my sources. admit my biases, post things that I do not agree with …. Always have. Always will.
here, why don’t you link in your prior post about this film? http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
I do.
um, you didn’t at the time I wrote that 18 hours ago. It’s like your response to “guest” when he already tried to make it clear to you with other replies that he is Dr. Grazier of JPL.
I really do not like being called a liar. I put the link in before I ever saw your comments. Try refreshing your browser. As for Grazer- I see no attempt to post with that name.
I’m seriously wondering where you’re going with a statement like that. You do know, from postings here and on your sister sights, about how many movies are being filmed at Michoud. Several buildings have been converted for their exclusive use. Dozens of films have been done or planned. So one hollywood guy had a beef? Wow, try a narrower brush.
What is a “sister sight”?
I think he just means any of the other space-related blogs or webnews sites, like space.com, or SpaceRef, or the similar-sounding NewSpaceWatch (although the latter doesn’t make mention of this film)
So what? Sci-fi has existed long before there was NASA, and NASA is not in the movie-making business. I am not sure why we have started expecting our fictional entertainment to always be supported by people on the “reality” side. That can add value if movie-makers choose that, but it isn’t a requirement for entertaining us and getting some of our money – that, not science education, is their goal.I see in the comments that there may have been some NASA consultation, but if they had preferred to spend their movie-making dollars some other way, fine. I certainly don’t want NASA using tax dollars on it.
I would prefer that NASA people spend their time actually trying to make this stuff real.
Well NASA did help with Capricorn One.
I think there’s another side of that to consider. Entertainment often results from, or is enhanced by, our willingness to suspend reality and accept a story line as not real, but fun. That’s fine, but more and more people — of all ages — are far too vague in their understanding of what is reality and what isn’t (this has nothing to do with the stupid so-called “reality” TV shows).
When a movie is made to look like reality, but contains and often relies on things that simply aren’t real but are outside the average person’s knowledge, the automatic reaction seems to be that people will simply assume that what they’ve watched does reflect reality, except in extreme cases, like 50-foot robot destroyers and little green men.
They then casually pass their misconceptions on to others over time and we end up with a whole lot of people who believe untrue ideas and even nonsense. In this respect, while the movie may be entertaining, it is also reducing the average person’s understanding of the world around them.
Some people may say, So what, it’s no big deal, but these same people don’t understand why somebody else got the promotion, or even the job, instead of them. We don’t all need to be scientists, but we do need to have a fairly good grasp of what’s real in the world we live in. In many professional, and even social, situations, illustrating one’s lack of understanding about simple reality can have the same negative effect as discussing astrology or reincarnation, and I suspect the average victim doesn’t realize that they’ve done themselves no good.
So, who has the responsibility for at least trying to keep people from falling into this trap? The movie makers, the individuals themselves, the schools,…? Currently no one is trying to control it and the effect is to reduce the nation’s average apparent intelligence, which hurts everyone.
Sci-fi, as you say, existed long before NASA, but science, and reality, existed long before sci-fi, and they are intertwined in almost every aspects of our lives, whereas sci-fi is a minor side issue. Movies can be entertaining without misleading watchers, either deliberately or negligently, about what is real.
I agree completely, but the original story seems to assume that consulting with NASA = the only way to be real about science, or may be implying something else about NASAs overall value to the public, NASA disinterest in pop culture or something else I don’t quite get. I am just not sure in this information age that involving a government agency to find basic science info is a good use of either side’s time, regardless of how well that agency does its core work or inspires the public. When movie makers want to go about it that way, fine, but when they don’t, I just can’t find much to read into that decision. There are lots of places to find science consultants, and a variety of reasons for picking them. On the question of who is responsible for stopping the “dumbing down” of American society, NASA may find it easier to get people to Mars…
Tom’s note: According to Charles Bolden’s blog:
Angelina Jolie was originally cast but dropped out later. Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Natalie Portman, Marion Cotillard, Abbie Cornish, Carey Mulligan, Sienna Miller, Scarlett Johansson, Blake Lively, Rebecca Hall and Olivia Wilde were all subsequently tested or approached for the lead role. Finally, Sandra Bullock was cast.
(ok that didn’t come from Charles. Source: IMDB. In case anyone took me serious. You know with all the hate for Mr. Bolden and all.)
No longer content to have disaster movies happen to US cities they have to now take it to the ISS. Boring.
After watching the trailer it feels like a part of the agenda driven liberal policy, “risk is to dangerous don’t send humans into space send robots.” In effect it’s a policy that nobody has the right to put their lives at risk, in addition, that Astronauts and scientists don’t understand the dangers of space. The specific goal of the trailer makes the film feel like it’s goal is to scare the uniformed into a “space is bad” philosophy, it’s the same social engine that want’s population control and billions of dollars for carbon taxes. All of this so that they can operate “Green” fly by night orgs that constantly an inexplicably vaporize with little to no notice and no deliverables (timed with the end of Muti-million dollar grants). The substantive results of the policy is simply you can’t live anywhere else “we” are in control listen to us or you’re all going to die, also “it’s not safe unless “we” say so.”
I’ve noticed this fear tactic in overpopulation messages in college course work, which they are overtly stating that “large families are unsafe” the term sustainable is often used to replace safe or safety.
Here are some examples where human space flight does not play a role in the narrative in science and research for the future.
http://www.icsu.org/future-…
http://nsf.gov/awardsearch/…
http://www.clivar.org/resou…
How did you get all that from a trailer? You do realize, don’t you, that suspense is an important part of many storylines, right? This particular storyline involves two main characters in distress, a storyline very similar to many used since the beginning of film and written stories. How is it that you were able to dig through that short trailer to find the hidden “agenda driven liberal policy?”
Perhaps waiting for the movie to come out in order to make informed comment would be a better option.
You make it sound like we should all just hide under the bed.
Perhaps he means the bed should be in space, with better shielding from meteors.
While I won’t deny there are those with such an agenda, I don’t think we can assume that’s what’s going on here. Alfonso Cuaron grew up wanting to be an astronaut, as well as a filmmaker, and since his last film was ‘Children of Men’ I would expect this to be a thoughtful effort.
From what I know of the plot, this trailer probably contains the majority of the disaster-action spectacle in what will be a mostly quiet suspense film set entirely in orbit around our Earth.
Personally, I’m excited to spend a few hours up there in IMAX-3D, experiencing a harrowing, semi-realistic worst-case-scenario of the shuttle era. We may be staring down the barrel of a fictional ‘Apollo 13’ for the 21st century. You’ll recall that that film dramatized the real dangers of space as well as the human ability to survive them, and in a way that emphasized the importance of manned exploration.
By dissecting the trailer, I’m going to speculate on the plot mechanics:
George Clooney and Sandra Bullock (and someone else) are performing a Hubble-esque servicing EVA when ‘space junk’ debris destroys(?) the shuttle ‘Explorer’. Possibly this accounts for the high orbit (372 miles), but that may also refer to something in the official synopsis about them having “to go farther away from the Earth in order to get home”. Bullock careens away from the Canada Arm, Clooney goes after her in an MMU – they end up tethered together in a higher orbit and *somehow* aim to rendezvous with a fictionalized ISS. Along the way he probably dies. She comes in fast on the space station but somehow ends up inside, where she is able to change into the Russian suit she is seen wearing elsewhere in the trailer. Another incident (possibly the same cloud of debris coming around again, and probably towards the end of the film) ravages the space station while she tries to board a Soyuz capsule. Lots of expensive hardware burns up on reentry, and the ISS budget is freed up to better fund commercial crew and planetary exploration. Maybe it ends with NASA re-allocating resources and declaring a firm new destination beyond LEO (hah).
What I can’t figure out is the parachute tangled up in the ISS – could this be debris from whatever caused the initial incident? A failed launch or spacecraft collision? More likely it’s a premature, accidentally deployed chute from another Soyuz (or Dragon if they really want to mix up the timeline). And is that a version of MIR I see being deorbited, or just a part of the shattered ISS?
I’m no expert, and the physics look a little suspect – but seeing this in a theatre in 3D the other night had a powerful, breathtaking you-are-in-space-for-real feeling, and in my opinion we need more films that aim to conjure that. Just ‘wow’, with audible gasps from the audience.
For those of you who ARE experts – what is the most ridiculous or ‘wrong’ aspect of this trailer? Obviously besides the sound, which shouldn’t be there. Kevin Grazier was the man who kept BSG impressively on track (within its
own rules), but filmmakers don’t always follow the advice of their science advisers.
What do you guys think? Is GRAVITY respecting gravity?
I don’t understand why some of you complain and whine so much about a movie that is made for entertaining a wide array of audiences. This movie wasn’t made for scientist or to be taken serious…the genre is…wait for it….science FICTION.
Please focus on the words FICTION and ENTERTAINMENT and maybe some of you will be able to sleep better tonight.
I’ll reserve judgement until I see the movie but there’s an awful lot of sudden relative motion in the trailer for not apparent reason. We’ll just have to wait and see!
We really don’t need any movies scaring the public away from space. Especially with the NASA budget cuts going on. I know the filmmaker pretends like he’s a space fan but I doubt it. Someday when we look back on the reasons why human beings decided not to expand into the stars and chose to stay on Earth and die out, this movie will be a prime example of the backwards media that caused it.