Neil deGrasse Tyson: 'Gravity' Is Great, But Here's What It Got Wrong 

"You wouldn't send a medical doctor to repair a satelite more than you would send a mechanical engineer to do open heart surgery." I NEVER ASKED FOR THIS

Constructive criticism is often misinterpreted as just criticism.

came into this thinking it was Neil debunking newtons concept of gravity with theory of relativity.

Neil deGrasse would be great at *Cinema Sins*

I bet the film creators would shoot themselves if Tyson was on the set during filming.

Cinema is a form of art, and just like any art those who enjoy a piece tend to be defensive when that piece of art is attacked. It's kind of a flaw in our egos, in that we can't always accept that something we enjoy/love/appreciate is only 90% correct and 10% wrong. I like that Tyson can say "Hey, these are some things that are wrong with Gravity" while also saying "Hey, I really enjoyed it". Criticism and Praise do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Excuse me, Mr. Tyson, We didn't send just a medical doctor to repair the Hubble Space Telescope; we sent Sandra Bullock.

ladies and gentlemen, the professor everyone would like to have in their classroom.

Hey! the Hubble Telescope could have been sick.

There's one thing I'll have to disagree with: while NdgT is, of course, absolutely right that it is very unlikely to land near a shore, it doesn't mean it's *impossible*. She just got lucky.

I don't think Bullock landed in "some lake." I think it might have been either the Ganges or the Nile (the Nile is focused in one space shot, and the Ganges is referenced by Clooney). Both rivers are mythical spawn points for life, and, considering the re-birth theme of the movie, it would thematically make sense for her to crawl from either of them.

Intersteller is better

Spoiler alert! (skip this if you haven't seen the movie and don't want... well, spoilers!) Something that really bugged me was when George Clooney had to cut himself from Sandra Bullock, he did this because something was pulling him and in turn her away from the satellite. But there was nothing there to pull him, there was only tension in the rope, nothing else, so he should not have been pulled off in the opposite direction, so he shouldn't have had to cut loose and kill himself. This just annoyed me a little because it's a major part of the plot and is so unjustified, they could have had some sort of shrapnel cut him off.

Gravity is a great Space Drama that becomes quite intense and emotionally draining. However, its focus is more on the energy and emotional journey this woman goes through. Interstellar is a space Drama that has the gift of a long runtime. It has time to get the science right and get the drama and emotional connection right. Sure, it took its liberties, as any science fiction is bound to do, but it also nailed both parts equally well. Both films are great in their own distinct ways, and both benefit from an insanely talented director, but they both serve very different purposes.

Two things really bothered me most in Gravity (there were more, but those are the ones that I really remembered). One: where in the security line scene when Sandra has a foot caught up in the wreckage and she has George straped to her. I realize the inertia would fling Clooney into space and take Sandra with him so he decides to unhook and save his colleague from being ripped from those cables and drift of into space with him. But by the time he disconnects he's already slowed down by the safety line. What I mean is, if he didn't detach himself before the line was stretched to it's max it would have no point doing it after, when the gross of the momentum was already aplied to the tug and therefore transmited to the other body. If the whole idea of his sacrifice was to prevent Sandras foot to come loose from the additional momentum generated by his mass, than he should have detached much earlier before he could transmit the energy to her. Maybe I just missed something though. Two:The moment when Sandra opens up a pressurised hatch. Such a violent reaction of a slab of metal would have probably killed her and most certain catapult her into space. That's only my estimation but I think that such a heavy suit and her mass would produce a great amount of momentum and g-force, surely capable of overwhealming a human handgip. I know it's Hollywood, but still...

Neil is the man. Love the way he breaks down science in laymens terms.

Gravity haters flocks to these videos to get confirmation from Neil on their hatred of this movie, yet they seem to miss the last 10 seconds where he says what he actually thinks of it. If he can enjoy a movie despite scientific inaccuracies, then why can't you?

Neil deGrasse Tyson, epitomises the expression "A gentleman and a scholar".

why cant film makers hire some1 like neil to fact check the script before the movie?

I could never get myself interested during the movie. Further, was this a movie worthy of that many oscars?

I enjoyed the movie too. Totally agree about the final scene. While watching it I was thinking, if it was me, would have landed in the middle of ocean welcomed by sharks or drowned by huge waves 🤣🤣🤣

NdGT is the probably coolest intellectual personality in the world.

Again Neil deGrasse Tyson makes great points. I have loved Star Trek ever since I watched the first episode but I always recognized inconsistencies in the science. An example from Star Trek where they anticipated the future but only got it partially right; my cell phone (outdated) looks like a communicator, yet they didn't predict that we would still hold it up to the side of our head.

Tyson enjoyed the movie? Shit then i suppose i have to check it out.

Haha! I'm a mechanical engineer who was a surgery tech (medic) in the Army!

i had some time durring christmas and watched interstellar and gravity, both in same day.. after interstellar i was like, ok, this shows all theories i have heard about before from documentaries, i found some parts to be just hollywood cheap ideas however i enjoyed it, and i wished it lasted not 3 but 6 hours to explain all those theories deeply and show all those scifi inventions in details. After interstellar i wanted to watch more so i decided to try gravity this time. From begining till the end i was like what the hell is that. everything was sooo unreal. eg. when she catched wire and held that hero, what force threw him away? they were not spining just floating still, she held him but hero flew away as if he fell into canyon. And the trip in open space to another space station come on. what distance would they have to fly over? what speed? each satelite is moving very fast. even if they had such luck to hit some they would crash in high speed and die. And when she get it back to earth. after being in space she would be too weak and need to get used to gravity, she would hardly get out and swim safely to beach.. gravity is really bad in my opinion, and has nothing with scifi. it is just fiction. or comedy.

I know where Neil DeGrasse Tyson is coming from, Jurassic Park is my favorite movie ever, but I can still pick apart the inaccuracies.

Kneel the grass typhoon.

Keep being you Neil. Dude has been my hero since i seen him on i think TLC.On a show discussing Pluto losing planet status. And he said something to the effect of. It doesn't matter how many school kids write me letters it doesn't change my mind.....lol. In this era of hurting someones feelings being a bigger crime than actually hurting them. That statement was awesomely cold.

In Tyson we thrust!

This guy is great. Love hearing about space and the universe from him.

The only thing that jumped out to me was when they first learn that satellites are being destroyed, George Clooney's Character says something like "There goes everyone's facebook." Which is not true, the internet doesn't use satellites for communications, it uses cable across land and on the ocean floor for going to other continents. So it would have been better to say HBO or something like that. But you could argue it was just an off-the-cuff statement not to be taken too seriously, which I can agree.

Films are an artform , and gravity is an immersive spiritual experience to me. ergo , films many times to hone their philosophical side had to cut short on plausibility and reasoning and that to me , make it a lot more fun than to be just satisfied by it's science and cerebral sides. i understand your point to enlighten people just about the facts on which gravity compromised for it's story's sake , otherwise , as you said , you had an amazing experience. so be it !

This is reminiscent of the truth of scientific method vs. popular opinion in general. Science is always 99% right on the cusp of change, but takes the 1% left over very seriously. In other words, science likes to focus on and improve its own errors rather than pat itself on the back for its successes. By contrast, popular opinion responds immediately and emotionally to criticism. Tyson's instincts were scientific, and honored the scientific method well. Love, but criticize. Appreciate, but improve.

Both Interstellar and Gravity are my favorite space movies, though I prefer Interstellar much more

0:45 That surface tension effect is used to localize propellants within the tanks to provide gas-free liquid to the engines.

No movie is without sin

The re-entry scene was the one that made me say "She's floating in the middle of a decelerating capsule? Boy they got that one wrong."

In addition, I thought that there was a problem about Sandra Bollock's character: I mean, she had a personal tragedy that made her drive around every evening, and then, she kind of all of a sudden, I suppose, decided she wanted to become an astronaut?!??!?!?

Sandra Bullock as Dr. Ryan Stone, a medical engineer. Medical engineers are regularly employed by hospitals and clinics, making sure medical equipment is running properly.

dude he even guest-starred on cinema sins for Gravity

One time I envisioned the satellites as an explanation quite vividly. I experimented with a heavy metal helmet and salinated towel to disrupt potential radioactivity. The experiment failed to end or affect the visions in any way.

He made some great points.

Even I, as (I think at the time) a high school teenager, was immensely annoyed by the scene where Clooney drifts into space. The tether catches him and his motion stops. They are still at the time attached to the ship and at that moment neither of them are in motion and there is no outside force pulling him outward. There is absolutely no reason for him to still drift away when the tether is cut.

Dr. Tyson... You still get it wrong. Dr. Ryan is not a medical doctor. That is an incorrect inference on your part based on the statement that her lab was in the basement of a hospital. That does not mean she is a Medical Doctor, that could be just where she had her lab because her work was for a Medical imaging system. You just ASSUME that meant she is a Medical Doctor.

My main problem, as far as Suspension of Disbelief was bunjee jumping (in a Soyuz) around the ISS breaking up in a Kessler Field. Adding to the Kessler Field. IDK what the probability of that happening, without breaking something in the Soyuz (Like IDK, the Life Support? It's basically an aluminum bubble) but I'm going to estimate them as Astronomical.

"total satellite destruction, don't do it" lol

what about that moment when mission commander matt drifted away after Bryan pulled him. wouldn't the moment when Bryan stopped his drifting, there would be a decrease in inertia and possibly stopping him. I'm not that great when it comes string tension and its relation to force but I'm still curious. Anyone care to answer?

Well, I think the movie is boring and without any substance to it. I don't know what the point of it is. It's not a good SciFi with some good plot, it's a bad drama in a weird setting.

I liked the movie too. Also have it on DVD as well. Almost every movie has those bits that just aren't right. Just enjoy the movie, if it's good. It's ok to point out flaws or even laugh at the mistakes. Don't let a few wrong things ruin a good movie.

Sending a medical doctor to space, yes its a mistake. She says she is a medical doctor, then later she says she is a mission specialist. Gravity film is an example of great film making. It is focused more on its screenplay than science. In Science test, grammar is ignored. Just like that see the film making of Gravity. Its short in length. Keep it short and very good film, this is what always impress. Hence, they did not have time to drop Dr. Stone in middle of Ocean and then explain how she escaped :)

SCIENTIFIC QUESTION: At what point in water's mass (think about filling up a cup, a bathtub, a pool, a lake, an ocean) does gravity change its physical effects on water allowing water to no longer need a container to hold its level? More simply put, at what point does water start curving AROUND something instead of needing to be contained IN something?

I want to kiss this guy. I wanna kiss him good. He needs a kiss.....just look at those scientific lips.

Thanks, Neil. I'm actually doing a criticism essay on the movie "Gravity".

Nothing bothered me with this movie. Why? Because it is a science fiction movie. And I enjoyed it as such. Therefore, the most you can really expect out of it is really just entertainment. Had this been a documentary. Then sure, we can all sit back and complain about how "stuff like this doesn't happen like that, because of physics and shit". The true critique on this movie should be whether you enjoyed the movie or not? Was the acting up to snuff to draw you in on key points? If we are now going to consider science fiction movies based on real-life physics, then can someone please explain how in the ending of Alien. Ripley is able to hold on to a ladder while there is a space vacuum that sucks out the alien and shes able to not only survive the vacuum pressure but also pull herself up. Also how does the Alien scream after its pulled out into space? There is nothing in space to for the waves of sound to travel with. No sound.

A few things bothered me about the movie, and the apparent lack of stars wasn't it. 1. when the corpses of the crew floated into view, they were just normal looking, I was under the impression that a corpse in the vacuum of space would be severely bloated. 2. after she landed in the pond, debris were seen falling in the sky. In the previous scene, the capsule she was in was traveling slower than the rest of the debris around it, then a parachute opened which slowed the descent of the capsule even more, then she had time to splash down, sink, get out, swim up to the surface and crawl onto shore and the debris that were traveling faster than her capsule were just then seen entering the atmosphere. 3. muted sound could be heard in the vacuum of space on several occasions. 4. some of the reactions to things that happened didn't seem believable, also I don't think anybody with the capability to do so is dumb enough to blow up a satellite. that was probably the farthest stretch in the movie. Overall a movie with good graphics and serious potential that was failed to be delivered on. Seemed more like a movie made for the sole purpose of showing off how gracefully Sandra Bullock had aged than anything else.

I hate it when people take movies too seriously. -.-

The tweets were funny and light hearted. People need to lighten up.

Mystery's of Gravity: What was the reason to put Cluney in to space? He was doing literaly nothing but annoying everyone and wasting jetpack fuel.

2:16 THANK YOOOOOOU!!!! There was no reason for that "Cliffhanger" like suspense death of a main character in zero gravity...simply tug him back towards you

0:46 there is a drop of water floating out of frame on the right soooo....

Sandra Bullock's character was actually a biomedical engineer, not a medical doctor or surgeon. She specializes in scanning devices and she was sent to space to repair the scanning device she had built for the telescope.

Did he forget to mention that a medical doctor could pull of an extremely hard maneuver in a capsule that was made in another country with a different language? The chance of hitting the right button is incredibly low.

“It might have had sone emotional flavour to it”😂😂😂love this man

To bad Tyson wasn't present during the creation. He could have made things a lot better.

I think the landing in the lake scene conveyed the notion that even though Bullock's character made it back to earth, she still wasn't safe and had to fight her way out of the water and to the shoreline. Only then was her journey over and she could rest for a moment. It gave gravity (pun intended) to the fact that humans are fragile and we can only live in a very narrow set of circumstances, even on our own planet.

A J a z z S o n g

I didn't watch this movie, so I'm curious; how'd she make the re-entry window?

I had to stop at spoiler alert lol.

The funny fact is : whatever could happen in space, and that NASA would never send a doctor to fix hubble, by my side, I wouldn't go to theater to watch a documentary about space.. I would watch it on discovery channel.. Gravity was a big emotional moment, and still a big one in bluray. Just watched it this morning. I think its one of the greatest movies I've seen. Interstellar was great also.

Gravity looked pretty but had no actual substance.

Startalk radio? THE FUCK?! WHY DID NO ONE EVER TELL ME ABOUT THAT SHOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Science "Fiction" is the key word here

I thought he was gonna talk about actual gravity, not the movie. Was confused, but intrigued for a minute

What if Gravity is just surface tension?

I like how business insider post tech vids and tech insider post GOT/Anything but tech vid

I thought the movie was a pile of shit. I'm upset that he didn't hate it as much as I did. Nearly every scene sent me into a nerd rage.

I had a problem when he got cut loose to die, in that situation he would have stopped "falling" away from her, the material would have snapped back and both could easily have lived

And I thought he was going to talk about the actual force of gravity. lol

The script says she's a medical engineer (not a medical doctor) and the dialogue also implies what she does: "I'm used to a basement lab in a hospital where things fall to the floor" and "It's designed for hospital use, but this one's a prototype." I guess it's easy to miss, but just wanted to clarify.

Good!! Expose this garbage movie. Interstellar makes Gravity look like kindergarten playtime, but simple minds require simple stimulation, and nothing more or else they shut off.

Im currently watching cosmos from netflix and its so good document series

space doesnt fucking exist

0:09 rip :(

Gravity was actually a really shitty movie

Watched the movie for the first time last night. I'd put it off all this time because I'd heard a false synopsis from someone who obviously wasn't a fan. But wow, I was right on the edge of my seat so much. The effects are brilliant. I just couldn't work out how they got the weightless scenes so convincing - I don't want to know. It ruins the magic. As for Sandra Bullock landing in a pond, why not? Yes, in every other landing the space capsule is 'programmed' to land in the Pacific. It's deliberate, and excuse me, but Sandra didn't have the luxury of time to plan a route or time or anything. 30% of the Earth's surface 'is' land, land with rivers and lakes in plenty, and a lot of very large lakes in fact. So, to me, it is a feasible landing site. Maybe Neil should have included some positive tweets to wrap around the negative ones so he didn't sound like such a downer. People hate to have the things they enjoy so much criticised too often. It's like a teacher telling a kid their artwork is rubbish. As far as the understanding of an ordinary, everyday citizen is concerned, our level of understanding of space flight, when compared to Neil's, is on the same level as that disappointed kid with his little painting. We're never going to get into space, so what's the harm in that she landed in a pond and her tears floated about? We're never going to find out to the contrary. It's nitpicking.

Visually it was very good, but otherwise it was just an okay movie.

He didn't mention the airlock doors that open outwards :-D Every single one in the movie from Tiangong to ISS and Soyuz opens outwards. In reality , such doors are ALWAYS constructed to be opened inwards. The reason for this is obvious. To make what happens in Gravity, like the door getting ripped open by accident,..simply impossible ;-)

I'd rather watch Tyson talk for 2 hours than watch a single minute of that shitty movie.

I think what pissed me off is how all of the material was accelerated to its orbit speed, and could make it back to clooney and bullock as if they werent moving. How does that make sense, if they are both the same distance from earth, and without thrust, wouldnt they be going same speed as debris?

The movie was rubbish. Period.

Pro-Tip: if your first public reaction (tweets) of something points out only its flaws without mentioning how much you liked it, or praising it's merits as well, how do you think the public will take your statements? You're a very smart man and we're lucky to have you, but maybe you'd like to focus on your communication / social skills a little bit.

I have to disagree with Neil (again...) there's no place in the known universe with cero gravity. Gravity is a universal force and the use of zero-g term gives the wrong idea and should be stopped and changed to microgravity which is the real term.

Watching now for the first time. Why did Clooneys' character release his tether? A body in motion when stopped in space stops. He wasn't dragging her. He couldn't because she stopped moving therefore shes stopped him from moving as well. But he was still dragging her? By what propulsion? Oh well, back to the movie.

never argue with Neil deGrasse Tyson cuz he rekts u

at 0:44 there're two drop floating on the bottom right of the screen.

The part that I didn't like was the fact that the debris kept intercepting the protagonist when in reality, they usually never intersect again. Another was when Kowalski kept on burning extra RCS when he didn't need to and ended up having to sacrifice himself. Then there was the fact that one explosion caused the destruction 3 major space stations with in less than 2 hours.

Much respect for Neil. A gentleman and a scholar! Well, more than a scholar!

who's Kamelia Angelova, the director of this one? I'd like to meet her

1:46 Nobody is going to survive a fall greater than 60 ft into water. And especially not from orbital height.