Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 06:34, 7 June 2014 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) from Talk:Gravity (film)) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about Gravity (2013 film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Scientific Accuracy: Kowalski letting go

Before starting an edit war on this issue, please read the following :

Clooney had to let go to save Bullock.

True — probably.

On one hand are people like Tyson , who argue that, since Clooney was in free-fall and thus essentially weightless, Bullock could have pulled him toward her easily. Both Grazier and Frost see it differently, though. Here’s Frost’s explanation:

Isaac Newton tells us that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Kowalski was unable to arrest his forward movement by grabbing ahold of the ISS, so he goes floating off into space. Other than gravity, which we can ignore for this close contact scene because it is acting upon everything in the same way, there are no forces acting on Kowalski. He is moving away because he was moving in that direction and nothing stopped him. Ryan (Bullock) goes after Kowalski …

This is where I think the scene gets a little hard to interpret. The fact that she just barely grabs him and doesn't continue closing in on him tells us that she is decelerating. She is decelerating because her leg is caught up in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. If we imagine the parachute cords are a rubber band, what would happen? The band would stretch and the energy needed to stretch it would be taken from Ryan. She has a kinetic energy equal to half her mass times her velocity squared. Her mass can't change, so her velocity would go down.

Now, what affect does Kowalski have on the situation? There is no force acting on him. But he too has a kinetic energy equal to half his mass times his velocity squared. So, if the rubber band is to slow Ryan to a stop it also has to slow Kowalski. So now it has to absorb her energy and his energy. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation is that the parachute cords can't absorb that much energy. So, he figures that if he lets go of her hand, the parachute cords, instead of absorbing Ryan's kinetic energy AND his kinetic energy, will only have to absorb Ryan's kinetic energy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/heres-what-gravity-gets-right-and-wrong-about-space/

This tells me it will probably be hard to achieve consensus this scene really is an scientific inaccuracy worthy of being mentioned in that section of our article. What's your take? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep it out of the article. The section is long enough as is, and if there is any doubt at all about it's accuracy then it should go. — Reatlas (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I am not proposing to enter the above into the article. I have noticed edit warring about a shorter piece regarding this part of the movie going in and out of the article, and I wanted to start a talk section where we could reach consensus on what (if anything) to write regarding this controversial scene of the film. I'll copy it here for us to examine. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the part that several editors (at least two logged in and multiple ip accounts) is warring over:

• When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his doom to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, his velocity is zero (no momentum). As Astronomer Phil Plait point out, all Stone had to do was give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski would’ve been safely pulled toward her.

My point is that (per the Washington Post piece above) this is not necessarily representative for the scientific collective as a whole. Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting... We have two sources saying opposite things... What we can do is put both the opinions there and let the reader choose what is better. This can be done by, let's say, adding the following:

• "When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his doom to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, the astronomer, Phil Plait, and the astrophysist, Neil Tyson, contend that as his velocity relative to her was zero, all Stone had to do was give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski would’ve been safely pulled toward her. But according to Kevin Grazier, the science adviser for the movie, and the NASA engineer, Robert Frost, Ryan began decelerating because her leg was caught up in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords weren't rigid enough, they stretched, absorbing the kinetic enregies of Ryan and Kowalski. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation was that the parachute cords weren't strong enough to absorb that much energy. He figures that if he lets go of the tether, the parachute cords, will only have to absorb Ryan's kinetic energy.

I would just like to know what other editors think about this.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi (would that be Syed for short?). If authoritative sources disagree, WP as an encyclopedia should say so; it's not our place to choose between them (and I'm not sure how many of us are qualified to do so anyway). Awien (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly... We can't choose here.

And @Awien I thought my sign and my talk should be sufficient to tell people that my name is Wamiq... Syed is just a clan-specific honorific equivalent to Sir/Mr—ШαмıQ✍ @ 18:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wamiq, when I responded to you, your signature was rendering as Syed Wamiq Ahmed Hashmi, in red, so i didn't bother clicking on it. Now I know. Awien (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, while there are choices to be made, that choice is not necessarily up on the table here. There are several options and several points to weigh here: we can write nothing (if "science" can't agree on the accuracy then that suggests it's not a notable inaccuracy), we can write something (if lots of visitors expect this issue to be addressed). We can cite both viewpoints or we could just pick one (for any of a number of reasons). Then again, we could write nothing simply to keep the section neat and slim. Etc. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Though I personally do not consider this an inaccuracy now, we have a source which says so... We can present it just for its own sake, as it may grab a reader's interest. And as I've proposed here, we can mention the counter-argument next to it. We can't include just one (it would violate WP:OR), nor can we exclude everything... And as there has been a deal of discussion on the issue in sources, it qualifies as WP:NOTABLE (as it seems to me). So the only option is to include both of them... @CapnZapp: And your fourth option (“we can write something”—can you please elaborate?)—ШαмıQ✍ @ 19:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wamiq. The point is notable because it's a crucial element of the plot so people are interested in whether it's valid - and informed opinion differs. We should mention both. Awien (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I offer for your consideration an abridged and slightly reworked version of Wamiq's suggested text. See what you think.

• When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his doom to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, astronomer Phil Plait and astrophysist Neil Tyson contend that since his velocity relative to her is zero, all Stone has to do is give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski will be safely pulled toward her. But according to Kevin Grazier, science adviser for the movie, and NASA engineer Robert Frost, Stone is actually decelerating because her leg is caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords absorb her kinetic energy, they are stretching. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation is that the cords are not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must therefore release the tether in order not to drag her to her death.

Awien (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wamiq likes this

Yes, sounds better than mine...—ШαмıQ✍ @ 08:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

But please change those present-tense verbs to past tense. I was inconsistent there and we should actually have all past tenses here.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 08:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Write something? Well, first off I must say I do not find the proposed paragraph accurately reflects either article's viewpoint. The Slate article does not "contend that since his velocity relative to her is zero". The observation Phil Plait is making is "both her and Clooney’s velocity relative to the space station was zero". His outright claim, the thing he's basing his entire "inaccuracy claim" on, is, quote: "They had stopped." Moving on, the WP piece does not say Kowalski "must therefore release the tether in order not to drag her to her death" - that's an oversimplification that in my opinion fails to convey the intended explanation; instead it says he lets go in order to significantly lower the kinetic energy the cords need to absorb in order to slow Stone to a stop.

But personally, my take is: rather than concluding the movie makes such an obvious and amateurish mistake ("forgetting" that there's no gravity in play) that can make it strenuous for Stone to reel in Kowalski, which also downplays the risk of the parachute cords failing; I myself much rather prefer the alternate theory that contents they had not stopped - and then focus on the forces exerted on the parachute cords; specifically that the risk that they come strung out and thus completely untangled (which would release Stone's foot and doom them both) before their elasticity can halt and reverse their motion away from safety would be much lessened if Stone's mass could somehow be more than halved (i.e. Kowalski, being the heavier human and wearing the MMU to boot, letting go).

But I readily admit that whatever was the script-writer's intention, the movie failed to make this very clear. I believe something should be said, if only to not have to have this discussion over and over as other editors add their interpretation... ;-)

And so, with this in mind, I present an alternate paragraph for your consideration:

When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his doom to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, several observers (including astronomer Phil Plait and astrophysist Neil Tyson) contend that the move shows the pair having stopped floating away. In this case, all Stone has to do is give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski will be safely pulled toward her, since there is no gravity like when you're hanging from a rope on Earth. But according to Kevin Grazier, science adviser for the movie, and NASA engineer Robert Frost, the pair are actually still decelerating, her leg caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords absorb her kinetic energy, they are stretching. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation is that the cords are not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must therefore release the tether in order to give her a chance of stopping before they're both doomed.

CapnZapp (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Wamiq likes this, too

The finishing touch:

When Kowalski unclipped his tether and floated away to his doom to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, several observers (including astronomer Phil Plait and astrophysicist Neil Tyson) contend that the move showed the pair having stopped floating away. In that case, all Stone had to do was to give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski would have been safely pulled toward her, since there was no gravity to pull him away. But according to Kevin Grazier, science adviser for the movie, and NASA engineer Robert Frost, the pair were actually still decelerating, her leg being caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords absorbed her kinetic energy, they stretched. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation was that the cords were not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must therefore release the tether in order to give her a chance of stopping before they were both doomed.

And @CapnZapp: I removed your “like when you're hanging from a rope on Earth” because it didn't seem quite ok to fit there.
And I hope I don't look like a cook ‘... spoiling the broth’—ШαмıQ✍ @ 09:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Briefly (going somewhere):

• "no gravity" is incorrect, it's just that we can disregard it since they are equally in free fall around the earth;
• agree with Wamiq that "like when you're hanging from a rope on Earth" isn't very encyclopedic phraseology;
• agree with CapnZapp that the tense we normally use in critical analysis is the present, as in all the rest of the article. (Plait does slip into the past when discussing this moment, but when we paraphrase his argument we can use the more normal present).

but no time to tweak right now.

Awien (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his death to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, several observers (including Phil Plait and Neil Tyson) contend that all Stone had to do was to give the tether a gentle tug and Kowalski would have been safely pulled toward her, since the movie showed the pair having stopped and there would thus be no force to pull Kowalski away. Others, such as Kevin Grazier, science adviser for the movie, and NASA engineer Robert Frost, suggest that the pair were actually still decelerating, with Stone's leg being caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords absorb her kinetic energy, they stretch. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation was that the cords were not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must therefore release the tether in order to give her a chance of stopping before the cords snapped and doomed both of them."

Tense changed, some rewording and rephrasing for clarity and tone. I've also removed the titles from Plait and Tyson because who they are is already explained. Better? — Reatlas (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes... Can easily go ahead. No objection.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 17:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

To be picky, it still needs to be in the present tense:

"When Kowalski unclips his tether and floats away to his death to save Stone from being pulled away from the ISS, several observers (including Phil Plait and Neil Tyson) contend that all Stone had to do was to give the tether a gentle tug, and Kowalski would have been safely pulled toward her, since the movie shows the pair having stopped and there would thus be no force to pull Kowalski away. Others, such as Kevin Grazier, science adviser for the movie, and NASA engineer Robert Frost, suggest that the pair are actually still decelerating, with Stone's leg caught in the parachute cords from the Soyuz. As the cords absorb her kinetic energy, they stretch. Kowalski's interpretation of the situation is that the cords are not strong enough to absorb his kinetic energy as well as hers, and that he must therefore release the tether in order to give her a chance of stopping before the cords snap and doom both of them."

Otherwise, good to go for me too (although "stopped" might not be quite the right word given that everything, people and station, are in free fall around the earth at a rate of ~8 kilometres per second, and only at rest - or not - relative to each other). Awien (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Good work, people. One thing though, losing the word "but" makes it less clear we're presenting two opposite viewpoints, i.e. one suggesting it's an inaccuracy and the other that it is not. Reading the paragraph as suggested could make a reader scratch her head as to what exactly is the inaccuracy presented by the second position (reasonable given that we're in the inaccuracy section of the article) - when in fact we are about to include it as an example of "no this isn't a glaring inaccuracy at all" kind of thing. Also, please avoid wordage such as "the cords are not strong enough" and "the cords snap". Grazier never uses that language, and I don't want the reader to question if parachute cords snap that easily when that might or might not be what Grazier had in mind. CapnZapp (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Re that last point, let me elaborate: Grazier only talks about "absorbing kinetic energy", and if he studiously avoids mentioning possibilities for the cords to snap, come loose (from the capsule) or simply come untangled (and slip off Ryan's foot) (just to take three possibilities out of a hat) so should we. Personally I believe he is talking about the cords elasticity and specifically the property of their "springiness" (as opposed to their tensile strength, the robustness of their fastenings, etc) to absorb Stone's kinetic energy as opposed to Stone's plus Kowalski's plus the MMU's combined kinetic energy. If you are able to simplify this language without devolving into a too-specific scenario, please go ahead. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So tweak it, dear CapnZapp, dear CapnZapp, dear CapnZapp.

So tweak it, dear CapnZapp,

Dear CapnZapp, tweak it!

(To the tune of There's a Hole in My Bucket, in the creamy tones of Harry Belafonte).

Slipping back into semi-retirement, Awien (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally prefer Grazier's original terminology. But I recognize the value of condensing the text, so I won't insist on that. As long as the resulting text doesn't oversimplify I'm cool with whatever you come up with. CapnZapp (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I have to say I liked the movie and I like the director and the actors. Having said that, I think the "Kowalski letting go" controversy is the most glaring scientific inaccuracy in the movie, in one of the most dramatic and emotionally charged scenes. I think it should remain on the list. A disclaimer that opinions vary is OK. The scientific consultant on the movie may not be an impartial judge. The scene seems to be based on real and fictitious accounts when a mountain climber would cut himself or herself off to save their partner. Here, for all practical purposes, gravity does not exist. If Kowaski were not in motion relative to ISS, Stone could have easily pulled him back. If he was in motion, the tether and parachute ropes stretching (converting kinetic energy to potential energy: mV^2/2 = - Kx), when he let go, she would be violently pulled back, as by a bungee or a spring. The two interpretations contradict each other. I’m an engineer who worked on the space shuttle on a contract from NASA, and a mountain climber. --Brzostowski 18:37, 8 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Well, Ryan did get a violent jerk backwards when Kowalski let go of the tether. So the second explanation seems plausible.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 19:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK folks, I'm going to boldly post the most recent of the rewrites, adding "however" (rather than "but") to make it clear these are differing opinions. I am completely open to being reverted, corrected, tweaked, whatever.

May I say too that this is how WP should, but doesn't always work: civilly, collaboratively, constructively. Best, Awien (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Could one of you please add the refs? I'm not succeeding in making them work. Thanks, Awien (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done CapnZapp (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Bold is beautiful! CapnZapp (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I did tweak "snap" to "fail" because I feel it's less specific and more true to Graziers' reasoning. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I know y'all have come to a paragraph that puts both views in, but can I throw in a spanner ? Given that the parachute cable in question is attached to something designed to slow down a re-entering faster-than-a-speeding-bullet(?) capsule, I guess its a) pretty tough and not easily snappable; & b) probably not very elastic either (or at least the force need to stretch it is quite high). Presuming Cuaron & co. researched the parachutes as thoroughly as everything else for scientific accuracy, wouldn't they know this ? And used 'real' cables for the scenario ? Therefore either our interpretation of Grazier/Frost's comments is wrong, or they are just plain wrong (or maybe its me just wrong). Anyone want to investigate the properties of parachute reentry cables ? Gotta be on Misplaced Pages somewhere ... The Yeti (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Yeti, Wamiq put it in a nutshell above. I quote: "Though I personally do not consider this an inaccuracy now, we have a source which says so... We can present it just for its own sake, as it may grab a reader's interest. And as I've proposed here, we can mention the counter-argument next to it. We can't include just one (it would violate WP:OR), nor can we exclude everything... And as there has been a deal of discussion on the issue in sources, it qualifies as WP:NOTABLE (as it seems to me). So the only option is to include both of them." Awien (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This was what I was afraid of when we simplified Grazier's language into "the cords snap" (or even "the cords fail"). @The Yeti: Please read the original wording in the source article. There you will see that Grazier talks about "absorbing kinetic energy" in a general way, never questioning the cords' strength.

Therefore stupidly killing himself by believing the extremely unlikely scenario that the cords would rupture despite being made to arrrest the re-entry of a capsule weighing 3000kg traveling at 300mph causing forces unfathomable to a human grasp

Again my fears have been confirmed. The above frustrated addition clearly means its possible to misread the simplified language as meaning "the cords snap" (which I can agree is a bit preposterous). If it happens one more time, I will seek your consensus in adding more of Grazer's complex language back in... Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your second question (b), yes it would indeed be useful to have expert help. I can only say that for me, Grazier's theory still holds even if the cords are rather inelastic - some of the kinetic energy could still be absorbed simply by how the jumble of parachute wiring coming undone as dragged outwards by Stone. If they are as heavy-duty as you suggest, that alone could account for some of the slowdown needed to save Ryan, and it would easily explain why Kowalski made his decision (since his weight and the weight of his MMU would add to the combined kinetic energy in a very significant way, probably - and I'm not a maths wizz - constituting 80% of their total). But since that is just uninformed speculation, the relevant fact is that any theory good for Grazier and Frost is good for me. Anything missing is probably just ignorance on my part (and yours perhaps?). In contrast, to believe Plait and Tyson, you need to accept that an otherwise thoroughly-researched movie would make a clumsy, jarring and completely avoidable amateur mistake. (Unlike the other reported inaccuracies, which even a layman like me can understand were necessary for the story) For me, that alone makes their stance much less credible than any technical shortcomings of parachute cord portrayals. :-) CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's one more interpretation of the scene; this time by Tina Fey:

"'Gravity' is nominated for best film. It's the story of how George Clooney would rather float away into space and die than spend one more minute with a woman his own age."

-- 2014 Golden Globes Opening Monologue

Ouch ;-) Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are two images that will clear up any confusion about this specific scene. http://imgur.com/a/SMHfz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.61.156.140 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

OK then: On one side we have "science advisors" being paid by the movie's backers to justify the scientific credentials of what would otherwise be an even more boring plot. On the other we have third party experts who have no financial gains to make from their opinions. Hmmmmm... I'm having a really hard time deciding who to believe... NOT.

And no-one has even mentioned the ridiculous manner in which the space station breaks up as it re-enters the earth's upper atmosphere (it looks like an aircraft falling apart at sea-level pressures), nor (at the film's start) the low relative velocities of the impacting debris field, the gay abandon with which Kowalsky flies around wasting his precious 'jet-pac' fuel, or the idiotic chit chat that no real astronaut who would have spent months/years preparing for the mission of his/her life would make. Also, citing the statements of astronauts or NASA officials is not necessarily going to clarify matters either: they have a vested interest in making this kind of movie as popular as possible.1812ahill (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So, you didn't like the movie? HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Short film on the DVD

The DVD contains a short film entitled "Aningaaq" which, some of you will know, looks at the scene where Ryan is talking with someone whose speaks a language that she does not understand from that persons point of view. I wonder if those of you who are taking care of this article think it merits a brief mention - perhaps in the home media section. If not no worries I thought I would throw it out as a suggestion. MarnetteD | Talk 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Already mentioned as a quick page search reveals (at Aningaaq the character in the Cast section). Thank you for your suggestion. CapnZapp (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I scanned the article and missed its mention. As other wiser people have said "You always find the thing you are seeking in the last place you look for it." :-) MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

British or American, or both?

Is this a British film, or should it be described as British-American? It was funded by an American studio, but made in the UK. Funding does not determine nationality - Jaguar was a UK firm even when owned by Ford.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Warner Brothers appears to have purchased the intellectual property rights to the film so they actually own the film which is a lot more than simply financing the film. The location of filming is if no concern towards nationality because many movies are filmed on location or at film studios with better facilities or in cities that offer tax breaks. JOJ 04:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, the location of filming - and the composition of the crew - is very much a part of the rules that are used to determine the nationality of a film. BAFTA, for example, regard gravity as a British production using the rules devised by the BFI, which in turn determine whether a film is eligible for the very tax breaks you mention (i.e. to get the breaks, a film has to score at least 16 out of a possible 31 points). Nick Cooper (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That line of reasoning would conflict with Game of Thrones, which is an American production despite some British funding and not a single scene being filmed on American soil (most of it in UK/Northern Ireland, with some parts in Morrocco and Iceland). In that case it would seem the nationality of the production company who created the series is the basis for a film/TV series nationality. In this case Warner Bros. is an American company with numerous subsidiaries. This is not dissimilar to A Clockwork Orange, filmed in Britain under Warner Bros., which is considered British-American. Gravity's nationality on Misplaced Pages should be reflected through Misplaced Pages's rules, not BFI's rules. I support calling it "British-American" on that basis. Jodon | Talk 14:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Warner Bros, Heyday Films and Esperanto Filmoj made Gravity, so really it's an British-American-Mexican film, although Alfonso Cuaron appears to now credit his work as British even if produced via his Mexican based company, so I guess it could be argued to be a British-American film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:FILMLEAD. It is cited just above. The only thing that matters is the attribution from reliable sources. In other words, check the sources we cite in the article. What nationality do they say it is? (Who made the film, or where it was produced, what prizes it has won, or what the director has to say and so on... is of no relevance for purposes of following Misplaced Pages policy in this regard). Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that even the sources are confused. The BAFTAs awarded it "outstanding British film". The Guardian reports as follows:

• Wendy Mitchell, editor of Screen Daily magazine, said that Gravity, "may be a British-crafted film. But it's not a British cultural film."
• Bafta chief executive, Amanda Berry, described it as "an international ceremony with a British perspective".

Digital Spy reports the following:

• Trade publication Variety explained that Gravity does qualify as a British film, posting on its Twitter feed: "Gravity qualifies as a British film for 'significant British creative involvement,'
• However, Screen International chief reporter Andreas Wiseman expressed the view that Gravity does not pass BAFTA's 'cultural test'. He tweeted: "A film needs 16 points in the BFI's 'cultural test' to qualify as #British | Does #Gravity pass? Not by my maths." He then included a link to British Film Institute's 'culture test for a film'.
• Journalist Guy Lodge of Variety and The Observer wrote on his Twitter page: "I hear the reasons for Gravity qualifying as a British film. I understand them. But still... no."
• Peter Davies of Fishbeat Productions also expressed his disagreement over the win, posting: "Gravity, the American financed film, directed by a Mexican, starring two Americans, filmed in England, wins Best British film at BAFTA.
• Fearnet film critic Scott Weinberg observed: "Gravity is a British film? OK. In order to qualify for a BAFTA, a film must be partially shot in Great Britain, or have a British producer or open in British theaters."

Perhaps this debate should be reflected in the lead? Jodon | Talk 00:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If the film's nationality is not singularly defined by reliable sources, then I suggest that we cover the different national interests later in the lead section (later than the opening sentence, that is). Why? Because that's what the policy tells us to do :-) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me also note that your sources aren't the ones currently cited. Currently when I write this, the relevant sources - the sources for the opening sentence where the nationality is currently stated - are four in number: Box Office Mojo (which does not identify a nationality, or presumes the US; I don't know which), Reelviews (stating both the UK and US), the Vancouver Sun (the link is currently borked but the review doesn't state a nationality as far I can see), and the South China Morning Post (a quick scan caught "mexican", "Hollywood" and "Britain's Pinewood and Shepperton Studios"). CapnZapp (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest a short section in the article dealing with public perception of the film's nationality? The nature of its confusion could be explained using at least the sources I mentioned, with more to be added of course. This could then be reflected in a single sentence in the lead. Jodon | Talk 21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest you talk about this in a new section? Reporting the "is this British?" row is a separate thing from us discussing how we report the film's nationality. The former is something external to Misplaced Pages, the latter is internal to Misplaced Pages. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html