# Talk:Gravity (2013 film)

This regards the paragraph starting with "Former astronaut Chris Hadfield was critical of Gravity's portrayal of astronauts..." that has seen some editor activity. 
Are we sure about featuring this aspect here (in Scientific Accuracy)? We give Hadfield the only voice, giving the impression this is the main way to look at the character of Dr Stone (Bullock). A cursory googling gives many more voices: negative as well as positive.
I do understand that assuming we are to have this discussion here, in Scientific Accuracy, letting non-technical non-experts speak is off topic, which I guess is the reason Hadfield is given the room all by himself. 
But is this really DUE? 
I suggest we find another voice (with sufficient technical credentials to be "allowed" to speak in this section) to nuance the impression our article gives the reader, or perhaps move Hadfield's opinion to a more general part of the article where he no longer remains unquestioned.
Thoughts? 
N.B. I am not opposing Hadfield's inclusion. I'm asking: is it DUE to let him speak unopposed, and phrase his criticism so definitively? CapnZapp (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

no mention that this is partially plagiarized from the Tess Gerritsen book of the same name? 198.49.6.225 (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the lawsuit it is not a "partially plagiarized" work. I don't know how you concluded that. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
As explained above in the talk section #Gerritsen lawsuit this IS mentioned in the article:
In 2014, author Tess Gerritsen filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. for breach of contract, alleging that the film Gravity is an adaptation of her 1999 novel of the same name. The suit was dismissed twice in 2015.

Current consensus is that these two sentences not going into details is the due amount of weight appropriate for a failed lawsuit. Also see the talk archive: Talk:Gravity (2013 film)/Archive 3#Controversy / Lawsuit. CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I have three times tried to revert the recent attempt at humor, always with the following error message:
[789bc110-1ac8-4e13-a2f0-76743ba38545] 2023-12-04 11:57:26: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"
Hope someone else can fix. CapnZapp (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It happened to me on an entirely different article about a half hour ago. It's a system-side issue, all we can do is wait for a fix.  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Cambalachero. Thank you for adding to the Scientific Accuracy section. However, it is not clear this content belongs here - the source needs to specifically discuss in the context of the movie; it cannot, for example, just discuss the threat of space debris in general. (You are an experienced editor; I won't need to explain why) Since I couldn't access the source (which in itself is not an issue) I'm asking you: does Bennett bring up Gravity the movie in that page 40 discussion? Could you (or someone else with the book, of course) perhaps edit the paragraph to more explicitly link the content to the movie? Notice how every other paragraph in this section are clearly discussions that involve the movie. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The book itself is about extraterrestrial life (the scientific concept) and astronomy, but at the end of each chapter they make a small break and talk a bit about some movie set in space. I uploaded a screenshot of the part that discusses the film here Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Cambalachero. That sort of response is profoundly helpful. CapnZapp (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you have so graciously provided the original source, I can make an observation: Your edit can be interpreted to mean the inaccuracy in question is that the debris would actually spread out so much that it would be unlikely to hit anything, much less shred the space shuttle. But given his remarks elsewhere ("Universe in the classroom", no 85, fall 2013 www.astrosociety.org/uitc) it becomes clear the real reason he's saying the risk is low is because of the different orbital parameters between satellites like the one hit by the Russian missile and the HST (and ISS). This is the exact same inaccuracy already discussed (the final bullet point as well as the graphic).
To integrate Cambalachero's addition I have edited the section, creating a subsection for "Technical observations" (the ones Dissolve found "absurd" :). I have tried my best to accurately summarize the complaints, but I am not an expert, so please feel free to review and approve, y'all. CapnZapp (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, User:PrinceTheDog but I'm reverting your addition even though you likely added it in good faith. 
This is because the Crimereads article you added isn't a neutral source - the piece is written by Gerritsen herself! This is clearly not neutral, and rejecting it is the only proper response. Crimeread is probably a reputable source, but it publishes personal essays. That means, the web site isn't a reputable news source vetting and standing by whatever Gerritsen wrote. They're just giving space to crime writers. Had you used the source to verify something Gerritsen said or did, we could discuss its inclusion. But using Gerritsen to "verify" claims regarding details of a lawsit she herself is was involved in is definitely not neutral.
That said, if you think you added other bits and pieces that you believe does qualify, don't hesitate to re-add them. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Do read this The Gravity Lawsuit and Adaptation to get what I would call a sober neutral overview of the situation. Tl;dr: it's far from obvious Gerritsen is owed anything even if the Cuaróns did read her book or script, and they might well never have. (This talk page should not discuss the merits of her lawsuit, I'm only bringing it up to help readers accept how little Wikipedia reports on this case. The only verified fact is that the lawsuit was dismissed, and *that* is the reason we treat it as barely worth a short mention). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)