About that there Cloverfield Paradox..

...there's been a lot of negativity about it up in the internets, mostly about how none (or little) of it makes sense.

I watched about 80% of it last night (it got past my bedtime) so I don't know the ending yet, but for me a lot of it did make sense in its own way.

The thing that's suprised me most is that nobody seems to have spotted the biggest and most obvious flaw... the bloody gravity!

From the first shot on board the space station I could see there was 'gravity' on board. Must be a gyroscopic station, I says. Centrifugal force, I says.

Then I noticed the window, where the outside of the station (sure enough) was rotating past. It seemed odd though, then I realised it was moving at about 90 degrees in the wrong bloody direction.

As if that's not bad enough, we see later that there's multiple modules each with their own gyration mechanism, with tunnels/corridors linking between them. These corridors have their own gravity too.

Anyone got an explanation for any of this?

...there's been a lot of negativity about it up in the internets, mostly about how none (or little) of it makes sense.

I watched about 80% of it last night (it got past my bedtime) so I don't know the ending yet, but for me a lot of it did make sense in its own way.

 

The thing that's suprised me most is that nobody seems to have spotted the biggest and most obvious flaw... the bloody gravity!

From the first shot on board the space station I could see there was 'gravity' on board. Must be a gyroscopic station, I says. Centrifugal force, I says.

Then I noticed the window, where the outside of the station (sure enough) was rotating past. It seemed odd though, then I realised it was moving at about 90 degrees in the wrong bloody direction.

 

As if that's not bad enough, we see later that there's multiple modules each with their own gyration mechanism, with tunnels/corridors linking between them. These corridors have their own gravity too.

 

Anyone got an explanation for any of this?

.....It's not real.

.....It's not real.

yup thats about the size of it

ITS A BLOODY FILM ROOTS gi thi head a wobble chap

I just popped on to say I hated the original Cloverfield, and as much as I liked that jolly fat fella that starred in The Flintstones, he couldn't save the sequel.

The handycam footage of the original was brain-damaging, and (SPOILER ALERT for the lucky few that haven't seen it or don't want to see it):

That is all.

I will now go away, never to bother this thread again.

Thank you for your time.

---

oh no, I just found this from 2013

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10057943&postcount=36

yup thats about the size of it

 

ITS A BLOODY FILM ROOTS gi thi head a wobble chap

NO I SAYS!

They had a perfectly good reason for having (simulated) gravity, but got it going the wrong way! I can suspend my belief when things get weird but to start the film off (the normal part) with an absolute lack of regard for physics is verreh poor indeed.

I watched about 80% of it last night (it got past my bedtime) so I don't know the ending yet. . .

so did you watch it to the end then ?

I eventually got round to watching it and while there are some silly and some stupid parts, on the whole it was worth watching.

6.5/10 from me.

.....It's not real.

By definition fiction isn't real, but within the bounds of the world in which the stories are set they generally follow a set of physical rules and have to be internally consistent.

If a film is sci fi, then the science of the fiction has to make sense as far as it's explained.

So for gravity, either go "gravity generators" and never explain the science, or if you're using centripetal forces then get the vectors right.

By definition fiction isn't real, but within the bounds of the world in which the stories are set they generally follow a set of physical rules and have to be internally consistent.

If a film is sci fi, then the science of the fiction has to make sense as far as it's explained.

So for gravity, either go "gravity generators" and never explain the science, or if you're using centripetal forces then get the vectors right.

You mean like in 'War of the Worlds' for example?

The book or the film?

There are lots of films (and even some books) that have internal errors. Doesn't mean that it's acceptable though.