Not a media report or recommendation, just an observation on the reactions to two particular pieces of fiction. Spoilers ahoy for Gravity and Interstellar if anybody cares.
The reactions by popular science commentators to two films, Gravity and Interstellar, fascinate me. Not their interpretations of artistic merit (oh god how arguments between the two sets of fans get out of hand), but what they chose to criticize in a nitpicky way.
When Gravity came out, Neil Tyson and other scientific commentators were extraordinarily fast to start complaining about stretched-through-the-breaking-point orbital mechanics, lack of cooling undergarments, relative velocities being too low, etc. Such commentary dominated their discussion of the film.
When Interstellar came out, it was beloved by many of the same commentators, praising it’s portrayal of general relativistic physics. But this movie contained almost exactly the same errors as Gravity multiplied in scale by more orders of magnitude than I can figure out—once they get through the wormhole they lose any and all sense of scale and energy and size and logic-in-spacecraft-design.
I have been trying to figure out why there was such a large difference in nitpicking reactions. The only reason I can think of that makes any sense is that it was an implicit reaction to the fact that Interstellar explicitly mythologized space as the grand destiny of humanity, while Gravity was ‘merely’ a drama-in-space treating space as a place you go to do things you can’t do on earth which will kill you horribly when things go wrong, without any implicit mythologization. One was just a movie that happened to be in space and use space as an evocative metaphor for human events, while the other was explicitly a ‘rah rah humans rah rah progress rah rah the grand destiny of mankind’ pep rally mythologizing space and interstellar expansion to a massive degree.
Not a media report or recommendation, just an observation on the reactions to two particular pieces of fiction. Spoilers ahoy for Gravity and Interstellar if anybody cares.
The reactions by popular science commentators to two films, Gravity and Interstellar, fascinate me. Not their interpretations of artistic merit (oh god how arguments between the two sets of fans get out of hand), but what they chose to criticize in a nitpicky way.
When Gravity came out, Neil Tyson and other scientific commentators were extraordinarily fast to start complaining about stretched-through-the-breaking-point orbital mechanics, lack of cooling undergarments, relative velocities being too low, etc. Such commentary dominated their discussion of the film.
When Interstellar came out, it was beloved by many of the same commentators, praising it’s portrayal of general relativistic physics. But this movie contained almost exactly the same errors as Gravity multiplied in scale by more orders of magnitude than I can figure out—once they get through the wormhole they lose any and all sense of scale and energy and size and logic-in-spacecraft-design.
I have been trying to figure out why there was such a large difference in nitpicking reactions. The only reason I can think of that makes any sense is that it was an implicit reaction to the fact that Interstellar explicitly mythologized space as the grand destiny of humanity, while Gravity was ‘merely’ a drama-in-space treating space as a place you go to do things you can’t do on earth which will kill you horribly when things go wrong, without any implicit mythologization. One was just a movie that happened to be in space and use space as an evocative metaphor for human events, while the other was explicitly a ‘rah rah humans rah rah progress rah rah the grand destiny of mankind’ pep rally mythologizing space and interstellar expansion to a massive degree.
What does this say?