MovieChat Forums > Passengers (2016) Discussion > things (mainly scientific) bother me...

things (mainly scientific) bother me...

posted 8 years ago by shwen
10 replies | jump to latest

I watched this movie last weekend.

although this movie might satisfy a casual movie-goer, i found the movie got the basic science wrong in various places.

1. for a generational ship going on an intergalactic voyager depicted in the movie, it doesn't make sense to not have a single human on the bridge to monitor emergencies.

2. the ship survived the asteroid field early on, hence causing the guy to wake up early. seriously? with the asteroid the size of moon hitting the ship head on, the ship didn't disintegrate, instead just causing malfunction on a single life pod?

3. the main ship structure is three spiral arms constantly rotating. hence generate 1G artificial gravity. why you need gravity if everyone is asleep? too much energy to spare?

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

You just scratched the surface of the film's inconsistencies with these three complaints. It was basically a romance adventure with a Sci-Fi background. Why would you expect the science to be credible in this kind of hack commercial project?
The producers were just interested in making money, and were happy to sell the film with a fraudulent trailer.

[–] BWC 8 years ago

1. for a generational ship going on an intergalactic voyager depicted in the movie, it doesn't make sense to not have a single human on the bridge to monitor emergencies.

I don’t think you can call it a generational ship, as everyone on-board was intended to be in hibernation the entire time and thus no new generations would be created before arrival at “Homestead II.” As for the lack of human monitoring, it was a case of over-confidence in the technology, which is what happened to the Titanic, and so in that regard is realistic.

2. the ship survived the asteroid field early on, hence causing the guy to wake up early. seriously? with the asteroid the size of moon hitting the ship head on, the ship didn't disintegrate, instead just causing malfunction on a single life pod?

I did not get the impression that the asteroid was the size of the moon; that would have been thousands of times the size of the ship. It was big enough, however, to exceed the capabilities of the shield and thus some damage occurred.

3. the main ship structure is three spiral arms constantly rotating. hence generate 1G artificial gravity. why you need gravity if everyone is asleep? too much energy to spare?

Gravity, even in hibernation, is needed to prevent bone loss and other proven effects of zero g.

[–] superharrybird 8 years ago

It wouldnt be practical for someone to be monitoring for years ,he/she would prob go mad without any human interaction. The best alternative is for the ship computer to be able to wake up a crew member when theres any fault that the ship cant fix. The crew should be able to go back to hibernation after the issue is resolve.

[–] TheZoolooMaster 8 years ago

These kind of movies are science fantasy, not "science fiction". Don't get hung up on the inconsistencies and plot holes. It's like criticising Star Wars because superluminal speed is theoretically impossible -- utterly misses the point that the film is to be interpreted symbolically but not literally. Well, I'm not saying this film has the same heroic scope as Star Wars, but Passengers also benefits from a less literal reading, and certainly a less strict adherence to logic and the laws of physics.

If you want to criticise the plot, we could analyse a whole host of utter absurdities on the ship: plants growing in a greenhouse for 120 years? A swimming pool filled with water for 120 years? An open bar with liquor for...120 years. Etc.

If you really analyse any sci-fi movie (especially those that take place in an imagined future) you will quite rapidly become dissatisfied with inconsistencies and lack of realism or scientific accuracy. The truth is that most "hard science fiction" movies would be utterly foreboding and alienating to the viewer. For instance, one aspect of most sci-fi that is always lacking is the insistence that the human beings that inhabit these technologically advanced worlds would look like, think like and act like us. However, if you read what futurists and post-humanists like Ray Kurzweil have to say, you might start to wonder why Chris Pratt and J Law don't have various bionic body parts or computer chips/nanobots implanted in their brains that allow them to communicate telepathically, etc.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

Exactly - Ridley Scott said it wouldn't be wise to over-examine the Nostromo's propulsion system. OTOH in the case of Passengers, the story and characters were so weak that these science inconsistencies became too obvious to ignore.
Aurora's imbecilic idea was worst of all. A round trip of a quarter of a millennium in order to write an article is farcical. Never mind the expense - what if some boffin had invented a much faster space travel, and another opportunist hack had already beaten her to the scoop?
She would probably have to work as a hooker - except android Realdolls would have cornered that market.

[–] SnowBoy81 8 years ago

1. for a generational ship going on an intergalactic voyager depicted in the movie, it doesn't make sense to not have a single human on the bridge to monitor emergencies

Yes, there should be people awake, to make sure things are working smoothly, to fix things, to do experiments and research, to fight off aliens, to prevent early wakers like Jim from molesting the sleepers, etc.

The question is how many people should be awake? I say there should be a team, a mini village, since they'll actually be living there and also because there might be need to do major repairs or fight off a spaceship of aliens, etc. I say somewhere between 20 to 100 people, including a number of heterosexual couples so they can have babies and keep the team/village going.

[–] FordLuver 8 years ago

This movie bothered me because it was 100% predictable.

Hit in the ribs by a chicken head...wow! Who comes up with this stuff??! (Shameless)

[–] CharlesTheBold 8 years ago

3. the main ship structure is three spiral arms constantly rotating. hence generate 1G artificial gravity. why you need gravity if everyone is asleep? too much energy to spare?
============
Once you start it rotating (for whatever reason) inertia will keep it rotating indefinitely with no further energy consumption. Newtonian physics.

[–] Xenopharb (617) 7 years ago

I would assume there is a lot of measurable friction.

There may be magnetic field isolation that would create less friction, but it would use energy as well.

[–] movieLoader (116) 7 years ago

1. It's not "intergalactic", they are still within the Milky Way. The message he sends back to Earth will take only "19 years" travelling at speed of light. Don't underestimate the size of our galaxy!

2. The ship has a shield, obviously a very good one that can deflect obstacles. It sounds like you want an explanation for how the shield works! LOL, this movie is set in the future where technology is better. That's all you need to know. The pod obviously had a design fault where circuits could malfunction when the ship's main power source is compromised. No doubt they will fix the design flaw so it doesn't happen again. That's how life is.

3. Obviously in the future energy is not as difficult to generate as it is now. The ship generates its own power, and that's all we need to know. The spinning motion of the ship must be well within the power capabilities of the ship for that length of time. It's only 100 years or so, not 1000 or "forever".