Anyone under about 35 may not have ever seen the real manned maneuvering unit in action, as they were only flown a few times in 1984. They didn’t carry much propellant, so they moved excruciatingly slowly; this Smithsonian video shows them moving at top speeds of maybe 6 inches per second, with peak rotation rates of maybe 5 degrees per second.
Was the station rotating? Perhaps centripetal force was acting on them causing the tether/loose lines into extension.
As an interesting aside, here’s the other end of Bullock’s radio conversation with the earth-bound dude.
Oh look, it’s someone who has seen a successful and well-discussed film and proclaimed it’s “the worst”.
Yep, there’s a line in there where mission control tells her they’ve got her tracked and she should stay put when she touches down.
Then she lands in a lake and has to not stay put. But I think that’s excusable.
Oh look Bozuit - it’s someone with their own opinion of a film, no matter how successful & well-discussed it was.
As for me, I haven’t seen Gravity but I still find 2001 Space Odyssey boring no matter how many people tell me how great it is.
An extensive earlier discussion of the movie: Gravity! [open spoilers] - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board
Well, when something is so much less than is promised, it’s a sharper pain and causes one to exaggerate it.
Fiction should’t be beholden to anyone’s limited idea of what might be “realistic.” God forbid you get your wish, movies will be as boring as reality TV.
I’m not criticizing someone having their own opinion. I can understand not liking Gravity. Understanding why someone might not like 2001: A Space Odyssey is even easier. But when someone claims to hold the opinion that Gravity “has to be possibly the worst space themed movie ever made”, either they haven’t seen enough “space themed movies” to comment or it’s pure affectation.
2001 is interesting in so far as the space travel aspects were done to be as realistic as possible. Given it was set in the, then, future, a lot of things were based upon what appeared to be reasonable assumptions, but the physics and engineering was good.
No, real-world space stations aren’t that close together, and real-world MMUs aren’t that nimble. But real-world space shuttles aren’t named Explorer, either. The movie was clearly set in an alternate world, and in that world, there are more maneuverable rocket packs (they even comment on it being a new design, and working very well), and space stations are accessible to each other.
It wasn’t the fact that it was so maneuverable that made it ridiculous. It was the fact he was flying around for no reason, wasting gas, without being tethered to anything.
I had a huge problem with them being able to see the debris coming at them. That’s like seeing a bullet coming at you from a mile away. Could it happen? Maybe, but probably not.
Also, I was under the impression that the slower traveling items would have dropped below them and not intersected with them again after they traveled around the Earth. I was under the impression that losing speed meant losing altitude when orbiting the Earth.
On the plus side: Sandra Bullock was certainly looking very fit in this one.
I don’t think the station was, but they still had some lateral movement, so I think they would have experienced some centripetal force. Also, the rope thing around Sandra Bullocks leg appeared to be a bit elastic, because as soon as she let go of Clooney, it pulled her back towards the station. I presume Clooney thought this rope would reach its elastic limit before he ran out of momentum, and would pull itself off Sandra Bullock’s leg. Could have been clearer in the film though
He was out there specifically testing the jet pack. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume he would put it through its paces? (although I take your point that if it was a test, a tether would probably be a good idea)
Clearly there are inaccuracies in the film (eg the Chinese space station isn’t completed yet, but Shuttles are already out of commission), but the most inaccurate space based film ever? Seriously?
Yes…with a tether. As you said so yourself 
That thing malfunctions and he’s not coming back
For me this was a huge mistake. When watching shuttle documentaries I’m always struck by how open, huge, and vast hanging in orbit is miles above the earth. Gravity somehow manages to make being in orbit feel claustraphobic. Everything seems to happen in an enclosed area of what seems a square mile.
The story, minimal as it was, also did nothing for me. Like it was written on a cocktail napkin.
I rented it yesterday on Blu-Ray, and we watched it last night.
It was easily the worst film I’ve seen over the last five years. The acting sucked, the story sucked, the writing sucked. It was nothing but clever visuals. The only saving grace was seeing Sandra Bullock in tight, black shorts. 
I got up halfway through and ate a snack in the kitchen. I didn’t want to go back and finish watching it, but I somehow managed.
Hmm, perhaps I should not have posted my critique in this thread. An apology to the OP. My bad.
It’s possible to dislike a good movie without hyperbolic claims that it’s the worst-ever movie in its genre. Gravity is rated 8.1 on IMDB and 97% fresh on rottentomatoes. *97%! *When very few people dislike a movie, that means it’s good. Gravity happens to be a very good movie that doesn’t happen to fall within the parameters of your unique (read: bad) taste.