“Added Fast” purpose: Allow Mike Caro to post spontaneous thoughts, tips, and information.
- Includes Mike’s notes to himself.
- Titles begin with “Fast,” plus date.
- If expanded later, link is at bottom.
Urgent note to self: Please inform world that reviewers and others who categorize the 2013 movie Gravity as science fiction are idiots. (Editor’s note to self: “Idiots” is a proxy word that must be replaced with something less volatile, like “wrong,” “misinformed,” or “slightly off target” before publishing.) Oops! Forgot to do that last part.
I just watched the movie for the first time. I found it enjoyable and well produced. There were a few things we could quibble about that weren’t quite realistic. But, overall, it was intelligently done.
Fine. My gripe is that science fiction is misused to describe this movie, because the term has evolved to mean that the plot is largely based on speculation about the future, discovered worlds, or where current science might lead us. Most monster movies aren’t science fiction, either, but that’s another argument for another day, based on another reason.
Gravity isn’t science fiction because it centers on current technology. It is a combination adventure and disaster movie that happens close to earth, in space. It’s no more science fiction than a movie with lots of car chases. Late-model cars may be technologically advanced, but they’re part of our modern lives. They’re not speculative.
Gravity is a good movie. But it isn’t science fiction. You’ve been alerted. — MC
— MC | Follow-up link: → None
↓ Scroll down to read or add comments ↓