Talk:Gravity (2013 film)

Gerritsen lawsuit
It would be intellectually dishonest for this article to not mention the Tess Gerritsen lawsuit.

https://crimereads.com/suing-hollywood/

Suggestions as to how? DS (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In a previous talk section: Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive 3 I reason dropped lawsuits aren't noteworthy. I can also note that the Tess Gerritsen page does not mention any connection between her novel and the film. Btw, your link is written by Ms Gerritsen herself - as a biased account I would hesitate to use it. CapnZapp (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of sentences about the lawsuit to the "Development" section for lack of anywhere better. A lawsuit by a well-known author, covered by multiple major trade publications and the Guardian, seems notable to me. --Jd4v15 (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. But I couldn't find any guidance in our policies. So I asked about the general issue over at WT:NOTE. Now, this specific case has come up, so I'm linking the discussion (ongoing): Wikipedia talk:Notability CapnZapp (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll restate my argument: There simply is nothing connecting this film to Ms Gerritsen and her book other than her allegations, and those were shot down. That's the end of the story. If the lawsuit was discussed, analyzed or commented upon, then it might well have reached independent notability. But there's no reason for us to report on something that led nowhere.  CapnZapp (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There seem to be multiple news sources talking about the lawsuit each time there was a development in the case   . I agree with Jd4v15's reasoning that the event seems significant enough to be included. The fact that the lawsuit was dismissed is noted in the article, although it could be updated to explain it was dismissed twice. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The less weight we give the case the better. I've replaced one reference in order to cover both dismissals. CapnZapp (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Dubious: Shuttle vs ISS in opening scene
The opening scene, in my recollection, does not have the ISS in it, just the shuttle and the MMU. The Cinematography section of this article is conflicted: within the text it states the ISS was in the opening scene, but the accompanying image caption states it has the fictional shuttle Explorer. Likewise the cited sources are in conflict: the Hollywood Reporter article states "shuttle" while the Time Magazine article states "ISS". I tried to change the text to 'shuttle' but then undid it when I discovered that I had incorrectly assumed the Time article stated "shuttle" as well. I'm just going to add a Dubious flag. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did you ping me? I've not even seen the movie; I've only deleted obvious vandalism here. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, now I know, have a good day.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we do not add dubious tags just because we personally might not recall a specific detail, and cannot immediately find a source confirming that detail. Just because no source is discussing that particular detail does not mean its inclusion is dubious! Especially not in pop culture media, where the primary source is the obvious source for sections like plot etc. "Cultural content" does not need to be sourced in the same way most other claims need to be. (We can't restrict our article to only plot details specifically mentioned by reviews, or there would be many instances where we wouldn't be able to write up a coherent narrative)
 * In other words, I encourage you to challenge your recollection by going back and rewatch the movie. If you do, and then are prepared to argue the ISS does not feature in a particular sequence, then let's talk. For the moment, however, I am going to revert the tagging of the article. Note: I'm not saying you are wrong: the ISS might very well not be included in whatever sequence you're discussing. But unless you confirm it, there's no reason for us to doubt our sources, pitching them against each other the way a dubious tag does. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources conflict, as Tfdavisatsnetnet mentioned in their post. I also cannot find any other supporting sources. Unless you are sure the ISS was in the scene or can find sources to support it, you shouldn't be removing tags calling that to the attention of other editors who may be able to actually resolve the issue. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

While the ISS does play a role in the movie, it is the shuttle that plays a prominent role here. The TIME article itself contains a video of the sequence: making this clear. I rewrote the paragraph. CapnZapp (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Very good, thank you. Too bad this talk section is subject to auto-archive, since retention of the TIME citation (which I concur with BTW) risks a future reversion of your change. This conflict should be permanently documented. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I bring good news: just because talk page discussions might be archived or even removed (the latter most often happening on user talk pages) does not mean they aren't considered permanently documented. Not only does archived discussions live on in the archive, all talk page discussion are permanently kept in page history (with few exceptions). But the archive is there for precisely this reason: if you should return to this article at some future date only to find an editor having spotted that TIME makes a brief mention of the "wrong" ship, you are welcome to link them to this - by then archived - discussion. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

portrayal of astronauts
This regards the paragraph starting with "Former astronaut Chris Hadfield was critical of Gravity's portrayal of astronauts..." that has seen some editor activity.

Are we sure about featuring this aspect here (in Scientific Accuracy)? We give Hadfield the only voice, giving the impression this is the main way to look at the character of Dr Stone (Bullock). A cursory googling gives many more voices: negative as well as positive.

I do understand that assuming we are to have this discussion here, in Scientific Accuracy, letting non-technical non-experts speak is off topic, which I guess is the reason Hadfield is given the room all by himself.

But is this really DUE?

I suggest we find another voice (with sufficient technical credentials to be "allowed" to speak in this section) to nuance the impression our article gives the reader, or perhaps move Hadfield's opinion to a more general part of the article where he no longer remains unquestioned.

Thoughts?

N.B. I am not opposing Hadfield's inclusion. I'm asking: is it DUE to let him speak unopposed, and phrase his criticism so definitively? CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

plagiarism
no mention that this is partially plagiarized from the Tess Gerritsen book of the same name? 198.49.6.225 (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * According to the lawsuit it is not a "partially plagiarized" work. I don't know how you concluded that. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 01:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As explained above in the talk section this IS mentioned in the article:
 * In 2014, author Tess Gerritsen filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. for breach of contract, alleging that the film Gravity is an adaptation of her 1999 novel of the same name. The suit was dismissed twice in 2015.


 * Current consensus is that these two sentences not going into details is the due amount of weight appropriate for a failed lawsuit. Also see the talk archive: Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive 3. CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Database error
I have three times tried to revert the recent attempt at humor, always with the following error message:

[789bc110-1ac8-4e13-a2f0-76743ba38545] 2023-12-04 11:57:26: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"

Hope someone else can fix. CapnZapp (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It happened to me on an entirely different article about a half hour ago. It's a system-side issue, all we can do is wait for a fix. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey Bennett's "Life in the universe"
Hello. Thank you for adding to the Scientific Accuracy section. However, it is not clear this content belongs here - the source needs to specifically discuss in the context of the movie; it cannot, for example, just discuss the threat of space debris in general. (You are an experienced editor; I won't need to explain why) Since I couldn't access the source (which in itself is not an issue) I'm asking you: does Bennett bring up Gravity the movie in that page 40 discussion? Could you (or someone else with the book, of course) perhaps edit the paragraph to more explicitly link the content to the movie? Notice how every other paragraph in this section are clearly discussions that involve the movie. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The book itself is about extraterrestrial life (the scientific concept) and astronomy, but at the end of each chapter they make a small break and talk a bit about some movie set in space. I uploaded a screenshot of the part that discusses the film here Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . That sort of response is profoundly helpful. CapnZapp (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you have so graciously provided the original source, I can make an observation: Your edit can be interpreted to mean the inaccuracy in question is that the debris would actually spread out so much that it would be unlikely to hit anything, much less shred the space shuttle. But given his remarks elsewhere ("Universe in the classroom", no 85, fall 2013 www.astrosociety.org/uitc) it becomes clear the real reason he's saying the risk is low is because of the different orbital parameters between satellites like the one hit by the Russian missile and the HST (and ISS). This is the exact same inaccuracy already discussed (the final bullet point as well as the graphic).

To integrate Cambalachero's addition I have edited the section, creating a subsection for "Technical observations" (the ones Dissolve found "absurd" :). I have tried my best to accurately summarize the complaints, but I am not an expert, so please feel free to review and approve, y'all. CapnZapp (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)