Comments on: Is ‘Gravity’ Science Fiction?

By: Nathanael Dale Ries

Nathanael Dale Ries — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 01:23:00 +0000

Gravity: Marketed less as a sci-fi, more as a dramatic thriller set in space

Interstellar: Marketed as sci-fi

Gravity: Glaring scientific inaccuracies – meets positive critical acclaim because of how “real” it seemed.

Interstellar: Impressive scientific accuracy – meets mostly negative criticism because people don’t understand the reality of relativistic time dilation and think it is too “fake”.

By: WWarren

WWarren — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 03:13:19 +0000

It’s a time travel movie! They combined an historic space shuttle with the future Chinese Space Station planned for around 2020. Back to the Future Sandra Bullock style!

But no, I think it’s a thriller and not science fiction. While the events of the movie were unrealistic and could never happen in that way, virtually all modern thrillers involve people doing super-human things surrounded by unrealistic events and extreme artistic licence. This was no different than that, and used contemporary technology and settings.

By: Andy Genova

Andy Genova — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:10:38 +0000

In reply to Stephen Monteith.

Kepler theory, which you talk about, is accepted theory.
Kessler’s syndrome, which was the basis of this film, isn’t.
I think you have them mixed up.
Gravity fits the description of sci fi.

By: Andy Genova

Andy Genova — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:06:17 +0000

I was with you on Gravity being an action film. I was arguing that “Her” is the sci-fi film nominated this year, even if it doesn’t feel like it.
However, when I read that thing about Kessler Syndrome, and realized that it is essentially what sets up the conflict in the film and ushers in the second act, everything changed. It is a mild piece of science fiction, it isn’t obvious, but that is only because we accepted everything in the film as scientific fact. It isn’t. Therefore, it is absolutely science fiction.

By: Aiden Brownless

Aiden Brownless — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:01:06 +0000

I do not thinks its a science fiction movie you can called a technology or something space technology movie, as there is nothing to be done with science but with technical work, yes it true that science is a name of imagination than work on it and develop something after hard work and technology is all about the hard world reality.

By: Stephen Monteith

Stephen Monteith — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 21:28:33 +0000

It’s a disaster movie set in space, like “Deep Impact” or “Apollo 13”. Keppler Syndrome is a scientifically accepted theory that was first proposed almost half a century ago. Just because we haven’t observed it doesn’t mean it’s “fiction”.

If you want a valid counterpoint, then consider the Chinese space station to which Sandra Bullock clings. It doesn’t exist, though it may exist in the future. That, to my mind, still doesn’t make it sci-fi, since the science to build it is currently available.

Science fiction, to me, includes the use of scientific technology (not theory) that is currently unavailable. Cell phones were always possible in theory, but if you had written about them in the fifties, then it would have been sci-fi. The technology depicted in “Gravity” is all science fact, even if it has not yet been built. If they had, even once, said “It is now 0800, February 10, 2017”, then I might consider it to be sci-fi.

By: nicole

nicole — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:38:35 +0000

No, it’s not science fiction.. it has contemporary technologies and it doesn;t happen on an imaginary world…

By: Iztok Mravlja

Iztok Mravlja — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:47:23 +0000

If Gravity is scifi, than any zombie movie dealing with unprecedented biochemical effects of viral agents on the human brain is scifi as well. Actually, zombie movies are more scifi than Gravity was in that respect.

By: mbloguser

mbloguser — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 20:18:48 +0000

I’m not sure it was SciFi- but I’m not sure that’s a good thing – because it was unrealistic without the normal suspension of disbelief that one participates in when not wrapped in the trappings of a “contemporary” technology setting. Given the proper fictional universe, I can say that warp drive or transporters exist, and live within that universe – but using today’s technology puts a higher burden on the filmmaker as the viewer must evaluate the events in the film in the context of reality. A lone mission specialist is going to go “space-station hopping”, oxygen deprived and in shock between US and Soviet platforms and land safely on Earth? Orbital space-debris fallout and O2 levels are going to be so exquisitely timed with other plot devices? After rather good handling of physics, all of a sudden there is some magical deep-spaced vectored constant force that suddenly comes out of nowhere and pulls Clooney’s (and apparently nothing else) character away?
Other than the latter issue, most issues are the same as once could raise about a Bourne or Mission Impossible movie, but they were brought to the forefront for me *because* of the movie’s factualized presentation.

By: Jo

Jo — Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:56:45 +0000

You are quite correct that Gravity was not a science fiction film, as was Europa Report by way of contrast. I’m glad to see someone raise the question that should have been asked a lot more frequently.