# SF Movies/TV that got Newtonian gravity/forces stupidly wrong vs those that got it right (spoilers) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 26, 2014, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592 "2014-03-26T08:32:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/1 "2014-03-26T08:32:01Z")
The topic is actually: Science Fiction movies and TV that seem to have tried to depict Newtonian physics accurately, but just screwed it up somehow. Exceptions will be made for those that invoke a future technology as a workaround - so _Star Wars_, \*Firefly \*and \*Star trek \*get a free pass because there’s some kind of artificial gravity or inertial modification built into their fictional universes. Consideration will also be given for works where accurate depiction of physics would have been silly or detracting from the story - so [_Moon_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_%28film%29) gets away with not depicting lower lunar gravity because it might have ended up being too comical. So… As far as I can tell, Kubrick’s 2001 got it mostly right - centrifugal faking of gravity seemed plausible and well thought out. \*Moonraker \*got it wrong. The simulated gravity provided by rotating the space station was consistent throughout, and all at the wrong angles. \*Armageddon \*got the same thing wrong as _Moonraker_, as well as having weirdly variable gravity conditions on the asteroid/comet itself. \*Ender’s Game \*got it wrong - again, for similar reasons to _Moonraker_. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/2 "2014-03-26T09:35:12Z")
I’m willing to give inconsistent or illogical depictions of artificial gravity a pass just because doing it right would be absurdly expensive or distracting. Your thread title put me more in mind of spaceships that non-Newtonially glide to a stop in frictionless space, as the disabled _Excelsior_ did in _Star Trek III_. ---
**Author:** ![Bakhesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Bakhesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bakhesh)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/3 "2014-03-26T09:53:57Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > The topic is actually: Science Fiction movies and TV that seem to have tried to depict Newtonian physics accurately, but just screwed it up somehow. > > Exceptions will be made for those that invoke a future technology as a workaround - so _Star Wars_, \*Firefly \*and \*Star trek \*get a free pass because there’s some kind of artificial gravity or inertial modification built into their fictional universes. > > Consideration will also be given for works where accurate depiction of physics would have been silly or detracting from the story - so [_Moon_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_%28film%29) gets away with not depicting lower lunar gravity because it might have ended up being too comical. > > So… > > As far as I can tell, Kubrick’s 2001 got it mostly right - centrifugal faking of gravity seemed plausible and well thought out. > > \*Moonraker \*got it wrong. The simulated gravity provided by rotating the space station was consistent throughout, and all at the wrong angles. > > \*Armageddon \*got the same thing wrong as _Moonraker_, as well as having weirdly variable gravity conditions on the asteroid/comet itself. > > \*Ender’s Game \*got it wrong - again, for similar reasons to _Moonraker_. Not sure I get your exceptions. I don’t remember any artificial gravity being mentioned in Star Wars or Firefly, and in Star Trek it just a hand-wavey get out (eg, if they have artificial gravity, how come they never switch it off/turn it up to double when they get boarded by enemies? How come it never failed when the power was down?) Why does Moon get a pass? Anything could become comical in zero-G, so doesn’t this rule apply to anything? However, for the record, I think Babylon 5 did gravity pretty well. The main station and Earth battleships required rotating sections for gravity, and B5 used the central spine of the station as a low grav area, which they used for manoeuvring ships through the docking bay. When people used the monorail, (which was nearer the spine, thus had lower gravity than ‘floor’ level) there were warnings about holding onto handrails at all times etc. When Sheridan had to jump out of an exploding monorail car, it wasn’t the drop that was going to kill him, it was that he was drifting towards the rotating floor of the station, which was moving at considerable speed in relation to him Also, the Starfury fights had the pilot strapped to the front (rather than seated), and required at least two thrusters to fire to make a turn. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/4 "2014-03-26T11:01:41Z")
> [@Bakhesh](#): > > I don’t remember any artificial gravity being mentioned in […] Firefly They went with “Show, Don’t Tell” - there’s a scene in \*Serenity \*( the pilot episode, not the movie), where they float crates into the airlock in zero-G, and they clearly fall to the floor when the lock cycles. They may not have been 100% consistent, but they were quite good about showing the difference between the zero-g outside and the agrav inside. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/5 "2014-03-26T11:03:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m willing to give inconsistent or illogical depictions of artificial gravity a pass just because doing it right would be absurdly expensive or distracting. Your thread title put me more in mind of spaceships that non-Newtonially glide to a stop in frictionless space, as the disabled _Excelsior_ did in _Star Trek III_. Do I recall correctly that the Excelsior had been travelling at warp prior to being disabled? If that involves using a warp bubble to stretch spacetime in front of you to make your destination actually closer to you (which I think is how they say ST warp works?) then disabling the warp while in transit _would_ effectively lead to a deceleration to a standstill… ---
**Author:** ![Bakhesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Bakhesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bakhesh)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/6 "2014-03-26T11:25:11Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > They went with “Show, Don’t Tell” - there’s a scene in \*Serenity \*( the pilot episode, not the movie), where they float crates into the airlock in zero-G, and they clearly fall to the floor when the lock cycles. They may not have been 100% consistent, but they were quite good about showing the difference between the zero-g outside and the agrav inside. I knew as I was typing it that someone would correct me. Don’t remember that scene at all. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/7 "2014-03-26T12:27:56Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Do I recall correctly that the Excelsior had been travelling at warp prior to being disabled? If that involves using a warp bubble to stretch spacetime in front of you to make your destination actually closer to you (which I think is how they say ST warp works?) then disabling the warp while in transit _would_ effectively lead to a deceleration to a standstill… The _Excelsior_ never got to warp - they suffered a major malfunction when they tried due to Scotty’s sabotage - so the made-up rules of warp speed don’t apply. The ship doesn’t actually stop, I see upon review, but it does appear to significantly slow for no apparent reason except to fulfill audience expectations, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/8 "2014-03-26T13:01:02Z")
> [@Bakhesh](#): > > Not sure I get your exceptions. I don’t remember any artificial gravity being mentioned in Star Wars I think it’s obvious - they have all sorts of artificial manipulation of forces (small F) - hovering things, force fields, and a universal sense of ‘down’ on all the ships. We can assume AG is a feature of this universe without it being explicitly mentioned. > [@](#): > > or Firefly As mentioned, the first episode shows the effect of AG being turned on while an airlock is compressing. > [@](#): > > and in Star Trek it just a hand-wavey get out (eg, if they have artificial gravity, how come they never switch it off/turn it up to double when they get boarded by enemies? How come it never failed when the power was down?) It’s mentioned a LOT in ST - not in TOS maybe, but all the others have ‘inertial dampers’ - one of the movies had AG being turned off in a Klingon ship; Enterprise explicitly mentions gravity plating. Why didn’t they use it as a plot device more often? Bad writing and continuity. Same reason they develop a super-duper shield that lets you fly through the sun in one episode, then act like it never happened for the rest of the series. > [@](#): > > Why does Moon get a pass? Already explained - I think it would be distracting in a movie that, after all, isn’t really about space, but it about the nature of personal identity. It \*doesn’t attempt \*to accurately portray lunar gravity - it just ignores the issue. > [@](#): > > Anything could become comical in zero-G, so doesn’t this rule apply to anything? No - because this is about movies that _ **tried to get it right** _, but failed - for example, going to the bother of having a rotating space station for fake gravity, then\*\* not having that fake gravity act centrifugally. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/9 "2014-03-26T13:27:12Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > They went with “Show, Don’t Tell” - there’s a scene in \*Serenity \*( the pilot episode, not the movie), where they float crates into the airlock in zero-G, and they clearly fall to the floor when the lock cycles. They may not have been 100% consistent, but they were quite good about showing the difference between the zero-g outside and the agrav inside. Was that supposed to be zero-G? I thought the crates were supposed to be on some sort of maglev pallet. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/10 "2014-03-26T13:37:51Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > Was that supposed to be zero-G? I thought the crates were supposed to be on some sort of maglev pallet. Naah, they moved them while they, themselves were also in zero-g. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/11 "2014-03-26T14:00:03Z")
Red Planet tried and mostly succeeded, physics wise (forget about the unmanned Russian probe having a GUI with a little bear mascot!) But they screwed up when Matrix-chick turned the centrifuge part of the ship back on and all the floating objects just magically fell to the floor, like it was magnetic or something. ---
**Author:** ![Bakhesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Bakhesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bakhesh)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/12 "2014-03-26T14:07:00Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I think it’s obvious - they have all sorts of artificial manipulation of forces (small F) - hovering things, force fields, and a universal sense of ‘down’ on all the ships. We can assume AG is a feature of this universe without it being explicitly mentioned. This is true, but then, we are talking about a universe where you can conquer gravity just by thinking about it really hard, so you might be assuming too much. > [@Mangetout](#): > > It’s mentioned a LOT in ST - not in TOS maybe, but all the others have ‘inertial dampers’ - one of the movies had AG being turned off in a Klingon ship; Enterprise explicitly mentions gravity plating. > > Why didn’t they use it as a plot device more often? Bad writing and continuity. Same reason they develop a super-duper shield that lets you fly through the sun in one episode, then act like it never happened for the rest of the series. Yeah, but I think you have to class bad writing as ‘got it wrong’. Its not that it isn’t used as a plot device; it’s that they mention it from time to time, then completely forget about it later For example, in the episode Relics, they discover a Dyson sphere because of its enormous gravitational field (tried to get it right), but then beam down to a ship on the surface (running on minimal power), and aren’t crushed to death (got it wrong) ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECLvFLkvY7Y](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECLvFLkvY7Y)) (errrr…spoilers I guess) (Not trying to be deliberately nitpicky by the way, just think you are setting the parameters of your question a bit too narrow. There just aren’t that many ‘realistic’ sci fi films out there :)) ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/13 "2014-03-26T14:13:00Z")
In “Abbott and Costello Go to Mars,” while they are in outer space, Costello fires a gun at one of the bad guys who have stowed away in the rocket ship. The bullet simply drops to the floor, “because they have moved away from Earth’s gravity,” IIRC. If you think that’s goofy, the title is really crazy. They visit New Orleans and Venus, but never Mars. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/14 "2014-03-26T14:13:03Z")
If we listed all the examples where people walked, sat, drank coffee, and took a leak on a spaceship like they were in 1g, we’d be here all day. To me, this is one of those things where I don’t even handwave - I don’t _expect_ SF filmmakers to deal with the lack of gravity problem, unless they want to. The budgetary issue alone would put the kibosh on making almost any film set in outer space. I also don’t worry about implausibility if the implausibility is central to the movie. Otherwise, I couldn’t enjoy a superhero movie, monster movie, fighting robot movie… you name it. However… yes, I do expect basic Newtonian mechanics to still operate in the movie world, even if the biology or astronomy or genetics or whatever is completely fake. I’ve mentioned this before and I’ll mention it again: the worst violation of basic Newtonian mechanics (that nobody caught) was in the train fight scene in Spider Man 2. In this scene, Doc Ock throws Spider-Man _forward_ relative to Doc Ock, whereupon SM is hurtled through a crosswalk, only to tackle Doc Ock from _behind_. [Scene here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z00fTwhmYX0&t=1m40s). (And, no, the train didn’t speed up and slow down in 5 seconds, as has been argued before. They are trains, not rockets - they don’t work like that. 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/15 "2014-03-26T14:21:08Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > I’ve mentioned this before and I’ll mention it again: the worst violation of basic Newtonian mechanics (that nobody caught) was in the train fight scene in Spider Man 2. In this scene, Doc Ock throws Spider-Man _forward_ relative to Doc Ock, whereupon SM is hurtled through a crosswalk, only to tackle Doc Ock from _behind_. > > [Scene here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z00fTwhmYX0&t=1m40s). > > (And, no, the train didn’t speed up and slow down in 5 seconds, as has been argued before. They are trains, not rockets - they don’t work like that. 😉 ) Yeah, that makes no sense, but to me the real physics issue is how the superhumanly strong Spider-Man can land numerous punches and kicks to the head and body of Doctor Octopus and not, y’know, explode him like a dynamited watermelon. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/16 "2014-03-26T14:26:36Z")
True, but the invincibility of the opponent is also central in these types of films. After all, a movie where Spider-Man punches Doc Ock and his fist goes into his mouth, exploding out through the back of Doc Ock’s skull, leaving the rest of the film showing how Spidey deals with the emotional, spiritual, and legal fallout from killing somebody… what the fun is that? 😉 (Though the cleanup scene would be funny. “Aunt May, how do I get brain stains out of clothing?” “You mean ‘bloodstains’, right dear?” “Uh… no, not really.”) On the other hand, if the above was directed by Tarantino, I’d be there in a second. ---
**Author:** ![Bakhesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Bakhesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bakhesh)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/17 "2014-03-26T14:30:31Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > On the other hand, if the above was directed by Tarantino, I’d be there in a second. Hell, that’s a good idea ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/18 "2014-03-26T14:33:52Z")
Movies and TV shows generally ignore the rules of gravity altogether, and for the simplest of reasons – it’s too expensive to really show the way weightlessness and low gravity works. Usually they simply ignored things, or had one or two shots where they highlighted the effect, THEN went on to ignore it. They figured the audience wouldn’t know and/or wouldn’t care. This has always bothered me. You COULD do low-g effects on the cheapo, if you planned things out correctly. Robert Heinlein’s **Operation Moonbase** did this, and it was originally supposed to be a TV show. In the 1950s! With modern CGI you could do low- and zero-g very well (as **Gravity** showed recently). In any event, it’s bothered me that virtually nobody shows low lunar gravity – not even the vaunted **2001**. And shows like **Space: 199** were hopeless. The recent **Moon** wasn’t convincing about it, either. Anyway, here’s a list of shows or movies that at least tried to get it straight: **2001: A Space Odyssey** – as mentioned above, doesn’t show lunar low-g correctly. And they make much about the “liquid food” on the moon ship dropping back. But the Zero-Gravity Toilet instructions are priceless. **2010** – much better than most, with Roy Scheider’s character actually using zero-G to make a point where he talks to Helen Mirren about how to get away from Jupiter. **Men Into Space** – largely forgotten and overlooked late 50s TV series that pretty faithfully depicted spaceflight. **Operation Moonbase** – the 3-D conference scene is priceless. \*\* Marooned\*\* – the “Ironman” capsule scenes (based on the Apollo craft) were pretty good. Of course, this came out during the Apollo missions, and it would’ve stood out as unreal if they didn’t stayt true to reality. **Destination Moon** – with screenplay by Heinlein (and others), roughly based on his _Rocket Ship Galileo_. Heinlein wrote a fascinating piece about trying to get this right, including the zero-G. The **Disneyland** 1950s episodes \*Man in Space, Man and the Moon, \* and _Mars and Beyond_, made with the collaboration of Werner von Braun, Willy Ley, and other rocket engineers, naturally tries to get its facts straight about gravity. Originally Broadcast in black and white on the old ABC-TV show, the episodes were made in color, and can be seen on the Disney Treasures DVD set **Tomorrowland**. These are all I can think of right now. Most other space dramas, even the better ones, simply ignored gravity ( **It! The Terror from Beyond Space** ), or assumed artificial gravity ( **Forbidden Planet** ) ---
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/19 "2014-03-26T14:44:32Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > They went with “Show, Don’t Tell” - there’s a scene in \*Serenity \*( the pilot episode, not the movie), where they float crates into the airlock in zero-G, and they clearly fall to the floor when the lock cycles. They may not have been 100% consistent, but they were quite good about showing the difference between the zero-g outside and the agrav inside. In _The Message_ Kaylee also mentions that it gets bumpy on board when they go down to a planet, because the planet’s gravity conflicts with the artificial gravity. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592/20 "2014-03-26T14:48:21Z")
_Gravity_ took four years to make. It will be quite a while before gravity in space is shown accurately in a majority of films, probably not until we start shooting movies in space. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sf-movies-tv-that-got-newtonian-gravity-forces-stupidly-wrong-vs-those-that-got-it-right-spoilers/684592.md?page=2)