EDIT: But of course like always, the books are better :)
It's funny how once you get hung up on a minor detail it spoils the entire experience. I had a friend who refused to play Jedi Knight II because the light saber physics didn't work like they did in the movies. Each to his own I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm totally on board with movie physics, but it's the inconsistency of the physics that's jarring. Especially if they then claim it's the most realistic hard-SF space movie ever. It started out that way and then abandoned it halfway through.
Still loved the movie, but the physics wasn't very consistent.
That said, can never forget that cheesy “love transcends the dimensions of time and space” line...
It's just: why would you make the point that you need a big rocket to take off from Earth, and then immediately abandon that point when you reach another planet? I guess the only explanation is really that the story transitions from a real world setting to a space SF setting. Different setting, different laws of movie physics.
Now I need to rewatch that movie.
For my taste, The Martian is the best hard sci-fi book and sci-fi movie out there.
On the other hand, I remember enjoying watching the Core. It’s a stupid kind of sci-fi that allows you to suspend your disbelief and have fun. What else can you do with a movie that literally calls the metal the ship is made of unobtanium?
I agree, though. Stupid space-fantasy can be tons of fun. Hard-SF always gets criticised for not being truly hard-SF. Even in the Martian, the adjustments needed to pick him up at the end would mean they're never going to make it back to Earth.
Does it matter? It's still a fun movie. But balancing between fun and scientific accuracy can be hard, and a slip can be jarring.
So how does everybody feel about The Expanse? There's some explicit super-science McGuffins in there, but most of it seems about as accurate as you could hope for, given the setting. Travel takes months. Not entire sure how their engines work, because the Rocinante does change course a lot without carrying insane amounts of fuel, so they do seem to have some sort of fantasy fuel.
http://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-expanses-epstein-dri...
That said there are nice CGI of the black hole, where the consulting part really shines. BTW, there is a "Mindscape podcast" episode [1] with Kip Thorne where he explains what technically accurate parts were kept, and the others where he had to (unhappily) let go.
[1] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2018/11/26/epis...
Confused, don't we already have Voyagers outside the solar system?
But anyway, this is far too harsh a criticism for one of the most realistic science fiction movies in ages, possibly ever.
Here's a short list of things you'll not see in any other science fiction movie, except for rare exceptions like 2001 A Space Odyssey, and certainly not in combination:
* No sound in space. The explosion caused by Dr Mann is not only silent, but this silence is used to fantastic dramatic effect. I got goosebumps! One of the best moments in cinema I've ever experienced.
* Spinning the spaceship to create artificial gravity. No gravity plating in this movie that can be turned on and off with a switch.
* Having to hibernate for the voyage to just Saturn, which is realistic because any such journey at sub-light speeds would take years even with advanced rocket technology.
* Correctly spherical wormholes with accurate rendering of the light distortion.
* Correctly rendered black holes.
* Correct demonstration of time distortion as caused by said black holes.
* The spaceships are physical models and the lighting effects of space and planets as seen through the windows are entirely realistic. They're a perfect match for videos taken on the ISS or on the Apollo missions.
* An incredible atmosphere that makes you feel, down to the very marrow of your being, the unspeakable isolation that deep space travel implies. Of being light years from Terra. Of being truly, utterly isolated to a level that is beyond all human reason. Dr Mann's plight made me have existential dread like no movie ever has.
In the entire movie, the only things I fault were:
1) It's not unreasonable for the Ranger to or the Lander to take off from a planet surface, as long as the gravity is significantly lower than Earth. Mars-like gravity would allow this just fine. What is unreasonable is for the Ranger to travel through a gravity well that could cause the level of time distortion they experienced. This makes for a fun plot element though, so whatever.
2) While they had a realistic wormhole and black hole, they "had" to put a tunnel into the wormhole for Hollywood reasons. People expect a tunnel. There is no tunnel, the second you enter you're already on the other side and the spherical exit starts receding behind you.
3) The floating solid clouds are a bit silly.
... and that's about it for the criticism. Meanwhile, I can heap praise on this movie for hours. In my book it's a nearly perfect movie, and anyone who criticises it is revealing more about their own flaws, about their own inability to suspend disbelief, and their own inability to accept anything that is less than absolute perfection than any flaw in the movie.
(It also has amazing music. And time travel. And awesome robots. And...)
1) there is a plant blight that attacks all plants (pretty unrealistic), and instead of getting rid of it they build a giant space rocket to colonize worlds many light years away, leaving everyone else to die. Completely absurd.
2) Somehow they also know how to get rid of the blight at least in specimens, because otherwise they'd be bringing it with them. Also pretty absurd.
2.1) you wonder why instead of launching giant capsules in space full of plants without the blight, they wouldn't just build giant airtight greenhouses on earth?
3) They plan and build an interstellar mission all by themselves, in a world where there are supposedly no high-tech companies or science left.
4) they enroll as the lead of the mission someone that hasn't trained for at least ten years (I believe they leave soon after).
5) they have highly advanced ai robots, which they use to produce sarcasm. They could just throw some in space: no suit or capsule needed- do your job and report.
6) the rocket launches from inside the nasa office building.
Random adventures with CGI on alien planets and very human squabbles follow- here we're in full adventure mode where people take off and land on planets without rockets, and nothing really interesting happens from the scientific point of view. The few accuracies you mention (no sound in space, spinning spaceship, etc.) are just copied over from 2001. The rest is decent cgi and a lot of hype about black holes physics being correct.
7) then there's black hole and love silliness.
8) the hero rejoins the cute lady in dire need of company- she surely won't reject his love. And I thought we were in woman empowerment era!
Like we can get rid of Coronavirus? Escaping to space for them is a form of quarantine, or a "green zone" to escape from the "red zone" of Earth. There's no hope of disinfecting a planet.
> Somehow they also know how to get rid of the blight at least in specimens,
It's easy to disinfect small things, like a handful of seeds.
> you wonder why instead of launching giant capsules in space full of plants without the blight, they wouldn't just build giant airtight greenhouses on earth?
The implication is that they're already doing everything they can, but that the Blight will eventually leave Earth about as habitable as Mars, so at that point you may as well go somewhere else.
> They plan and build an interstellar mission all by themselves
It's mentioned several times that the staff of hundreds are NASA (logos everywhere), and that the spaceships are largely the same that Coop used to fly before the Blight. That's why they want him specifically, he's a trained pilot with previous experience.
There's also a lot of technology left, such as AIs with apparent sentience. These are common enough to be used to pilot harvesters!
> hasn't trained for at least ten years
They skipped over the simulator time, it's a movie, not a documentary. What would you rather have as a pilot: Someone who's never flown before or someone who has?
> They could just throw some in space: no suit or capsule needed- do your job and report.
The AIs may not be as good as humans.
> the rocket launches from inside the nasa office building.
It was explained that this is a launch silo, the same as the type used by ballistic missiles. This is standard stuff.
The reasoning is that they're working largely in secret, because their work is unpopular with the public.
PS: The American public being this rabidly anti-scientific is entirely plausible! cough5G conspiracy nutscough.
> Random adventures with CGI on alien planets and very human squabbles follow
They're mankind's only hope and under incredible stress. Their friend dies. They're not exactly going to go about their business like emotionless robots.
Also, drama is entertaining. This is a movie!
Adventures are also entertaining. What's wrong with adventure!?
> Then there's black hole
Which was awesome to see in a Hollywood movie.
> love silliness.
Probably the most out-there part of the movie, but so what? If they didn't put this in there, like you said, they could have just sent robots.
Look at it like this: Have you ever heard stories of lost dogs that travel a thousand miles to get back to their home? Because they love their owners and are desperate to get back, no matter the hardship? Coop is like that dog, his love for his daughter is the thing that helps him find the way home. It's sappy, but whatever.
> the hero rejoins the cute lady in dire need of company- she surely won't reject his love.
Agreed, the mandatory relationship is a trope too many.
So clearly it's a crap movie that nobody should watch.
We should stick to the sci-fi classics like Transformers.
Now, the blight is just a McGuffin: an unimportant device to ignite the plot without really taking part in it, and it can be easily forgotten- like the fact that people are used as batteries in The Matrix, or the storm on Mars at the beginning of The Martian. Maybe it's also metaphorical of the plague of ignorance and anti-scientific thought. Still, it's a bit disappointing that not more thought was put into it- you can imagine Nolan putting infinite hours into getting the picture of a believable black hole, and yet the framework of the story is sloppy. (One also wonders why he didn't use climate change instead of the blight- political reasons?).
The rest of the plot is similarly sloppy: a secretive remnant of NASA is building a giant rocket without external support- and I find the idea that such endeavours can be taken in isolation, outiside of a thriving scientific and engineering environment, profoundly anti-scientific. Someone without specific training is recruited on the spot (despite not having even been contacted before). The rocket leaves from the hall of the office and building area (which might double as a silo, still the offices are directly looking into it). Once in space people happily take off and land from planets without issues of fuel and rockets. The various planets they visit on the way add nothing to the plot: they are just the "they have several adventures and difficulties" part, and could be repaced with different ones without effect. Finally the Hero sacrifices his life, gets the mysterious key to saving humanity, and is granted survival and a new hot lady waiting for him (I have a bit of doubts here as after all those passages near and within black holes, they might be living in two completely different timeframes, where 10 or 20 years are just a rounding error).
Science fiction is a tough genre, because good SF is philosophical, logical, and scientific- stuff that doesn't really appeal a large part of the population. Space travel is even harder, because its reality and glacial pace are so different from what we consider exciting. For its mechanics, 2001 has already said almost everything that could be said for the next 100 years without going into total fantasy.