MovieChat Forums > Passengers (2016) Discussion > Very good hard SF, but I still have two ...

Very good hard SF, but I still have two nitpicks

posted 7 years ago by GuyOnTheLeft (236)
15 replies | jump to latest

It’s rare to see science fiction mostly get the physics right, so “Passengers” deserves a lot of credit for things like having spinning rings to create artificial gravity, or Jim throwing his “shield” to counter his momentum.

But when the gravity went out, two things bothered me. One is how fast the spinning stopped. That should have taken a very long time (and only slowed at all because of people and objects moving around inside). The other is how Aurora got trapped in the water bubble. It should have been very easy to swim out. They could have instead had her hit her head or something like that. Although either way, going unconscious underwater and then reviving on your own after the gravity comes back seems highly dubious.

[–] Truthtalker (2009) 7 years ago

You think this is hard Sci-fi?

This movie could not be more dumb

[–] GuyOnTheLeft (236) 7 years ago

How is it NOT hard SF? Nothing magic or spiritual happened; and other than my two nitpicks, nothing went against the laws of physics. That doesn’t mean it’s good (although I do think it is), but it does mean it is hard SF.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

To me, true hard SF tends to focus more on the scientific concepts and less on the characterization.
2001: A Space Odyssey is a superb example.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft (236) 7 years ago

The initial problem that creates the story, the parameters of their dilemma, and the greater problem they have to solve to save everyone’s life, are all based on plausible technology that doesn’t yet exist.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I think the term Hard scifi is usually used for movies that use the physics more in the plot - like 2001 or Interstellar. There are plenty of films that qualify - by not using warp drive etc - but are just standard sci fi.
Like all the ones set in this solar system. Or planet of the Apes .

Firefly / Serenity - that dosent use warp drive, or instant communication AND dosent have sound in space. triple whammy. Would you call that "hard sf" though guyonleft?

[–] GuyOnTheLeft (236) 7 years ago

Love “Firefly”, but the artificial gravity (not using rotation) kills the hard SF for me. And both “Interstellar” and “2001” go way too “soft” toward the end. But I would consider the middle portion of “2001”, the whole storyline revolving around HAL-9000, to be among the best of hard SF.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft (236) 7 years ago

I would add that I believe physics is key in this plot. It’s why it would take so long for him to communicate with someone back on Earth. It’s how, crucially, he saves himself from being chewed up in the asteroid disintegrator: he grabs something and throws it as hard as he can toward the place he doesn’t want to go, which thanks to Newtonian physics sends him back the other way although not as fast because his mass is greater than the object he threw. It was very well done.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

ah yes , a bit like when Bender has to steady his rotation by throwing all his swag away in Futurama :)

and yes , i guess the communication lag is key , as well as those newfangled hypersleep gizmos.

[–] BourbonKing (5782) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BourbonKing (5782) 7 years ago

Hard SF? Hardly!

I remember feeling that the story was about to go sideways after he woke her up to pursue companionship and to shepherd the journey together. I was expecting a plot reveal that they, along with the rest of the passengers were suppose to be disposed of by the corporation so that an elite class of passengers tucked away in another location of the space ship would have access to all of the resources the ship had to offer and that there was no "other world" but rather a distant elite space colony where their ship would daisy-chain with the others already waiting.

The plot twist would be that they along with the majority of earth population are fooled into funding space exploration at the behest of upper class citizens who reap all of the benefits of space exploration and travel. The majority of people are just pawns.

That would have been for some good action, romance, and suspense. They could have thrown in some scary mecha thugs that were activated to kill the both of them. I think you get the gist of where I'm going, but the original story as is is somewhat bland and nothing more than a meager exercise in some "Gravity" inspired SFX.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft (236) 7 years ago

I don’t think you have the same definition of hard SF as I do. I define it as something that does not show anything that goes against the laws of physics as we know them. So actually, any science fiction with faster than light (FTL) or “warp drive” travel does not qualify. Same with instant communication, or artificial gravity that does not use spinning or acceleration to create it.

This movie was one of the very rare ones not to run afoul of any of those issues. In fact, the only others I can think of are “Gravity” and “The Martian”. But those are set in the near future. Further future, I think this movie may be unique.

And I also found it refreshing that there was no real villain or conspiracy (again, like “Gravity” and “The Martian”). That stuff is fine, but it has been done over and over.

[–] tom8 (3119) 7 years ago

i concur

[–] BourbonKing (5782) 7 years ago

I don't think the term hard SF really exists. But if you're talking about the technical plausibility of space travel looking more realistic than say Star Wars, Star Trek, or even the Alien franchise then I get what you're saying. Then again, we are in the present and there may be a technological advancement in the next 10 years where time and space make the speed of light about as old fashion as the horse and buggy.

[–] CraigJamesReview (1764) 7 years ago

I don't know if i'd call it Hard sic-fi. It's far from 2001 or any movie like that. It's a moving romance that uses space and the visuals to great advantage at time though and I thought Pratt and Lawrence were good together.

I'm trying to go for an entertaining, informative youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see and if you have any thoughts or criticisms, i'd love to hear them. Thanks in advance. Review right here-https://youtu.be/LE_aVVuNqnE

[–] TexasJack (12516) 7 years ago

I agree with all your points.