What? No storm of asteroids?

Rating: 5/10 (7 December 2014)

I know it's a movie. And I know they have to include both science and "human interaction" elements to try and appeal to the widest audience. But I can't stand all the emotional baggage writers and directors seem to think is needed in a sci-fi movie. It's his refusal to reach for the lowest common denominator, and his uncanny realization of what travel in space is about, that made Kubrick and 2001 the peak of the sci-fi movie pyramid.
Gravity? Oh ya, we almost got that figured out. By the time you get back, we will have flying cars. Wormholes that magically follow the orbital mechanics of the Sun and Saturn. How? Wormholes are bound in universal spacetime, not by a star's or planet's gravity. Meh, it's aliens. Done. We need a farmer/pilot as a lead character. But wouldn't the pilot or a ship like this really be a mathematician or physicist using celestial mechanics? Too boring.
And personal conflict on board? Kubrick again shows his genius. IN 2001, Bowman and Poole would have been hand picked for their intellect, but also for their non-confrontational, all business (read "dull") personalities. The kind of personality that could be trapped in a cave for 5 months, get rescued, and say "well, that was interesting..." Maybe, just maybe, someday a director making a new sci-fi movie will say "forget the formula" and show us realistic tech, realistic acting, and realistic plots. But I doubt it. Movies are rarely art any more (V for Vendetta excepted!). It's all about the money.