The Bad Physics of Ad Astra

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Rosetta Penn says:

    Taking into account that it was a sci-fi movie and not a deGrasse-Tyson documentary, I believe that most moviegoers were forgiving or unaware at best, of the scientific inaccuracies that you identified in this film. Dramatic license aside, I enjoyed the cinematography, but I agree that the storyline was derivative and the ending fell flat.

  2. Arwen The Horrible says:

    Thank you for the review! Considering this was supposed to be a sci-fi movie, the “sci” should stand for science. It seems the director, screenwriter and generally anybody involved just skipped science classes in high school. The first telltale sign was when the exhaust from the rocket didn’t expand as the rocket ascended the Earth’s atmosphere, which is something anybody could see just watching recent SpaceX launches. No, the blue flames just remain nicely focused the whole time. The whole movie just oozes laziness in writing and special effects. It seems that the production budget was really low, save for the space backgrounds. For example, the square corridor with a round door was used twice, once to depict the brightly lit Cepheus, and then in a reddish glow to depict the Daddy’s Antimatter Shack towards the end of the movie. Couldn’t they afford to build two different sets? Then there is the Martian abandoned warehouse, erm, I mean, base with infinite emplty shelves. What gives? And flying through the Neptune’s rings in 30 seconds, deflecting debris as if they were hail? In Agent Cooper’s words – Hellllooooooo! Anybody there? I’m just glad that I didn’t pay the admission.

  3. Paul Pearson says:

    Thank you for those further blunders. And, yes, the surfing through the rings of Neptune propelled by an atomic explosion? Tsk. Tsk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.