SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Like many sci-fi fans, I went to see Gravity when it came out last year and thoroughly enjoyed it. (A film in space with Sandra Bullock? How could I not?) Even Clooney's cameo as Buzz Lightyear was amusing.

It's now back in the media as a serious contender for a clutch of Oscars. It did annoy me at first that a lot of the time the movie is described as a 'space thriller' rather than 'science-fiction', as if film journalists were deliberately trying to avoid labelling it as a genre flick. But now I'm starting to wonder if it is a sci-fi film at all. It's set in Earth low orbit, which is no longer the realm of fantasy but instead just one of the many extreme environments humans regularly visit. Is being set in space enough to label Gravity as sci-fi, or is it just a disaster movie at extreme altitude?

I for one would love to see a sci-fi movie win 'best film', but I'm not sure if Gravity really fits the genre. What do others think?

@ Steph.

Well, if we want to be truly technical about it, I would say that it is science-fiction. Why? For the simple reason that there is no such thing in orbit right now as a Chinese space station. That Chinese orbital station is thus a purely fictitious element that makes the movie a science-fiction one. True, it would be set in the very near future from now, taking into account the time it would take the Chinese to build and send in orbit such a station. We are probably talking of the 2025-2035 period then.

Like you, Steph, I would love to see GRAVITY win as best film at the Oscars. I saw it and thoroughly loved it.

My son argued that it is not SF, since there is not a scrap of tech in it that does not now exist. I did point out the (unrealistically many) space stations in LEO. but he wouldn't have it.

The reason everyone on this board should see it? It is possible that there will be space tourism trips in our lifetime (especially if you are young). However, how likely is it that you will be able to pay $100K for a ticket? Not very. A ticket to GRAVITY will cost you $20, tops -- it is totally worth paying for the 3D and IMAX. And it is as close as you and I are ever likely to come, to actually going into outer space.

Michel wrote: "...I would say that it is science-fiction. Why? For the simple reason that there is no such thing in orbit right now as a Chinese space station..."

What about Tiangong-1? Admittedly, the real thing is a lot less impressive than that shown in the movie.

It's definitely science fiction. It takes place in an alternate universe. It's very similar to ours, but different nonetheless.

The Chinese space station doesn't exist, nor did we ever build a space shuttle named Explorer. (Not to mention the shuttle program ended two years before the movie came out with STS-135, while the mission in the movie is STS-157, which means Gravity also takes place a number of years in the future.) Plus, the orbits of the various objects were different from the ones in our universe, and that EVA jetpack had way more go-juice in it than anything that currently exists. In our universe, there's no way they could have made it from the Hubble to the ISS in the ~90 minutes it took them.

While I think it's awesome that a science fiction movie is contending in the major categories, I feel bad for any movie going up against 12 Years A Slave. That's poised to sweep every category its competing in, with the possible exception of costuming.

Yeah, this movie is littered with factual nonsense, placing it in the science fiction category. I liked the movie, but it had several major eye roll moments!

CJ wrote: "Yeah, this movie is littered with factual nonsense, placing it in the science fiction category. I liked the movie, but it had several major eye roll moments!"

It's not wrong if it doesn't take place in our universe. Hubble was originally supposed to have a much higher orbit, for instance, and in that universe it does.

It does get a couple minor details wrong, such as her tears not behaving exactly the way they would in space, but the other things people keep pointing at (such as not wearing diapers) are also quite minor... and maybe they don't exist because astronauts don't use them in that universe. And again, the story also takes place not just in another universe where things are different, but also a few years in the future.

Good points Trike. My biggest complaint was when Clooney was being pulled away by a force even though he was caught by the same ropes as Sandra's character.

CJ wrote: "Good points Trike. My biggest complaint was when Clooney was being pulled away by a force even though he was caught by the same ropes as Sandra's character."

That was because Sandra was stuck to a rotating piece, thus centrifugal force was at play.

Could explain it, but I didn't get that sense from the scene. I'll have to watch it again when it comes out on Blu Ray.

Trike wrote: "It takes place in an alternate universe. It's very similar to ours, but different nonetheless..."

Hmm... I don't buy the 'alternate universe' argument. It's certainly an exaggerated version of reality where things aren't 100% scientifically correct, but that's movies for you. For example, most car stunts you see in films couldn't happen in real life because the vehicles have to be specially strengthened or modified to do the stunt.

Steph wrote: "Trike wrote: "It takes place in an alternate universe. It's very similar to ours, but different nonetheless..."

Hmm... I don't buy the 'alternate universe' argument. It's certainly an exaggerated ..."

I think there's enough evidence to make the argument for an alternate universe, as I mentioned earlier.

It's rather like the TV series Sliders or the Old Man's War novels by Scalzi, where the universes "next door" are so similar to ours as to be virtually indistinguishable. This is a classic SFnal trope, and it mystifies me why people are so resistant to it. Maybe because the alternate universe shown in Gravity *is* so similar to ours?

What is interesting is that the astronauts who've reviewed it are divided as to its accuracy, but the ones who actually used the specific systems shown in the movie all seem to be on the same side of praising it. One guy says when he worked on the Hubble he had to use a one-of-a-kind tool, and that was the same one Bullock uses. Another says that the interior of the Soyuz is perfect and that Bullock actually pushes the right controls. Clooney letting go due to centripetal force has even been explained by a number of astronauts and physicists as being accurate.

Maybe it's just me, but I think we ought to be praising Gravity rather than tearing it down for minor quibbles, especially since this is one of the few Science Fiction movies to get such recognition from the Academy Awards. It means we might see more films of this quality, which is something I think most of us here want.

Well said Trike.

i thought Gravity was dreadful, visually good but im past praising a multi mullion £ movie for looking good.

Pickle wrote: "i thought Gravity was dreadful, visually good but im past praising a multi mullion £ movie for looking good."

Please define your meaning of 'dreadful', as I am wondering if we saw the same movie. If GRAVITY was truly dreadful, then the great majority of the other movies, past and present, would be pure garbage.

Trike wrote: "...Maybe it's just me, but I think we ought to be praising Gravity rather than tearing it down for minor quibbles, especially since this is one of the few Science Fiction movies to get such recognition from the Academy Awards. It means we might see more films of this quality, which is something I think most of us here want."

I loved the movie. It had me spellbound from beginning to the end. My comments are in no way intended as criticisms. It's just that because there's no speculative science in the movie, I can't convince myself that it should be labelled as science-fiction (and thus be a damn fine ambassador for the genre).

Pickle wrote: "i thought Gravity was dreadful..."

A tad harsh!

I'd like to know what you mean, too, Pickle.

I loved it! I loved that it's mostly a one- woman show. With such a setting! I would be very happy if Sandra Bullock won for Best Actress. (I don't think 12 Years a Slave has an entry in that race.) I would also be very happy if it got awards for being brilliant filmically like cinematography, sets and things.

Also of interest if you liked Gravity is the companion short, Aningaaq. It's the discussion she has with the man on Earth from his perspective. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zcYku...

SPOILER ALERT

1. the only way to have any character development was to have her daughter die previous and use this story to help her escape another near death situation... shit.

2. George Clooney's character was almost pointless. Im not convinced anyone other than someone with suicidal tendencies would not fight more for life rather than being there as a vehicle to help bullock.

3. The hatch that opens really quickly... that got really boring with it happening to often and again im struggling to believe that they would have anything life this in real life. (remember this was trying to be serious)

4. eeny meeny miny moe in a real film.. especially one trying to take itself serious. Seriously?

5. She happens to land in a beautiful wee lake. Now im no NASA specialist or know anything about space travel but i think the pod she landed in would float.. im pretty certain it would on a planet where water covers 71% of earths surface

6... etc etc etc

If i didnt try to take itself so serious i could have maybe tried to enjoy it as a popcorn movie but it wasnt fun enough for that and way too stupid for a serious movie... so it was a bit of a mess.

Steph wrote: "THmm... I don't buy the 'alternate universe' argument. It's certainly an exaggerated version of reality where things aren't 100% scientifically correct, but that's movies for you. For example, most car stunts you see in films couldn't happen in real life because the vehicles have to be specially strengthened or modified to do the stunt. "

I always sensed The Dukes of Hazard was science fiction.

***SPOILER ALERT***

We watched Gravity last weekend and I had mixed feelings about it. Very strong mixed feelings.

When the line about her daughter came out I thought, 'What a cheap shot. Can't believe you have pulled that out of the bag to tug on our heart strings,' but as the movie went on I realised that this probably only annoyed me because I thought I was going to be watching something about astronauts and space (I managed to avoid all hype and reviews), whereas actually it was a film about the mechanics of grief and loss.

What annoyed me as that dawned on me was the obviousness of some of the visual metaphors (her floating foetus-like in the airlock - beautiful but heavy-handed; her having to find her legs again at the end) and other devices - the crying baby, her giving Clooney a message for her daughter and so on.

Then it got to the end and I got really upset about the woman's daughter and the fact that actually quite an emotionally harrowing film had been sprung on me. I know, a bit crazy, but then I was a bit ill.

So...then there were a few bits I started to think about and wonder what was really going on. Like when she has the dream encounter with George that convinces her to go on - is he still floating within comms reach and he's actually switched back on just for long enough to talk to her? Ooooooh. I would like to see that scene again and see if the conversation could be had remotely - possibly not.

And at the end, is she really alive, or has she died on reentry? Is the hyperrealism and the idyllic setting supposed to signal this or is it just supposed to signify the reawakening of her desire for life? And does it matter? And is the whole point that it doesn't matter, because she's finally come to terms with her grief.

Who knows. Anyway, I enjoyed it, and I thought that Sandra Bullock's performance was tremendous. Carrying a whole film like that was amazing. But I do find it hard to judge because it wasn't the film I wanted to watch.

How's that for a sprawling incoherent assessment of a film?

A lot of people bashed Gravity because it's lacking plot, but it is what it is. It's a wild-ride of a survival film set in space. I don't think it should be science fiction though. To me, Sci-fi must have pseudo science in it, and the Chinese space station wasn't more advanced than the ISS, and the Space Shuttle is a relic!

Nevertheless, A directorial masterpiece. I wondered whether or not she died.My only regret is that I didn't see it in the theater and in 3D.

thank god "that every movie made IS not Hollywood Formula". liked gravity well enough.

another spiderman, I don't need

I recently watched Gravity and was going to start a new topic on it until I realized that it (and so many others) already had a topic. So, first of all, I loved it and was sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time. It was short, sweet and got the job done.

Now to answer Steph's original question... You just had to ask! I automatically took it as Science Fiction, even after watching it. Why? Well, it took place in space didn't it? I simply never stopped to think that the movie had neither technology nor situations of a scientifically speculative nature.

Now that I have thought about it, I'm afraid I come down on the same side as Brenda's son: it's simply not science fiction. It is however, a great space disaster movie that should appeal to all space-loving sci-fi geeks. So, there.

Brenda's son is wrong on two counts:

1) There *is* tech on display that doesn't exist in our world, namely the EVA jet pack Clooney is using.

2) Science fiction doesn't strictly have to be about the tech. You could set a science fiction story in the past or present and have the speculative element be a creature rather than a gadget. "The Ugly Chickens" by Howard Waldrop, for instance, or even the original Mighty Joe Young, which can be argued the titular star is a Gigantopithecus.

But there are plenty of other reasons why Gravity is SF, as mentioned upthread.

And there are a ton more space stations in that movie than there are in RL. However, if you want to get technical, it's near-future SF, very close to us. The only reason there is no EVA jet pack today is relatively minor; all the tech is there.

I saw the film and enjoyed it, which is more than I can say for most of the trash that comes out of Hollywood these days. I was also impressed by the fact that they got most of the science right. Was it SF? We could probably debate that for a long time.

I can't resist mentioning the joke I've heard about the film -- that it just proves George Clooney would rather drift away and die than spend any time with a woman his own age.

My understanding is that Clooney was signed for the movie well in advance, but that Bullock was actually the fourth or fifth choice for the part, only signed up after their first choices had turned it down. My comment on that is that sometimes Hollywood just gets lucky. Bullock was great, and deserves recognition for the performance.

I didn't realize Clooney was a serial "cradle robber". As a wrestling nut I was shocked to learn that he had taken up with Miss Stacey Keebler (about age 25 at the time), someone who is well known to WWE fans. I guess she got too old for him.

Sandra Bullock's performance was indeed great. I've always liked her, but this role was something special.

Brenda wrote: "And there are a ton more space stations in that movie than there are in RL. However, if you want to get technical, it's near-future SF, very close to us. The only reason there is no EVA jet pack to..."

I don't think it matters if something won't exist for 10 centuries or 10 minutes; it doesn't exist now, which was the criterion.

John wrote: "Was it SF? We could probably debate that for a long time."

I don't see why, since it's freakin' SF.

So the tech is from tomorrow and not next century, so what? Next Tuesday is still the future.

This kind of thing is annoying me. CSI is sci-fi. None of that tech exists. Person of Interest is sci-fi. None of that tech exists. Does *some* of it exist today in a more primitive version? Yes. Doesn't change the fact that CSI, PoI and Gravity are all science fiction.

Also, the important element of SF is that of extrapolation and speculation. Gravity does that part just fine.

Samuel wrote: "I didn't realize Clooney was a serial "cradle robber". As a wrestling nut I was shocked to learn that he had taken up with Miss Stacey Keebler (about age 25 at the time), someone who is well known to WWE fans. I guess she got too old for him."

In his defense, he has dated plenty of women his own age, and his wife is 36 and pretty accomplished no matter what your criteria are.

I have responded to way too many posts in this thread.

I was hoping for a higher science to melodrama ratio, but I guess I'm not much of a movie person.

I liked Gravity, but as most people know it's a lot like Ray Bradbury's "Kaleidoscope" short story...without the horribly depressing ending, because Hollywood hates sad endings (for the most part).

That being said, the string of crazy coincidences that end up saving Bullock's character were a bit eye rolling, but I don't get too critical with movies anymore. It tends to just ruin them for me.

I hated this movie and thought it just a bunch of sentimental, melodramatic BS. OK, the physics was good, but the rest sucked, IMHO. Boring.Give me Riddick or AVP any day.