MovieChat Forums > Space Cowboys (2000) Discussion > Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait ...

Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait....


Tommy Lee Jones LANDED on the moon...using a satellite? He strapped himself to the satellite, blasted off in ONLY a spacesuit, and managed to land on the moon?

Wouldn't the moon's gravitational pull as well as the satellite's speed (remember it's being propelled by nuclear rockets) have caused the satellite to crash into the moon...like really hard? Really really hard? I mean think about it, it would have been like an asteroid slamming into the moon, Tommy Lee Jones wouldn't even EXIST anymore.

I'm no rocket scientist or anything, so maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. But the ending of this movie was extremely stupid in my opinion, showing him lying up there on the moon with satellite debris. It's not like he could have just unbuckled himself and jumped off; floating down to safety. He'd have been going just as fast as the satellite, and when he hit the moon you can be sure he would've gone f-cking SPLAT!

I dunno...whatever. The movie was alright I guess.

reply

The ending would have been less uplifting if it showed Hawk's crushed body scattered all over the lunar landscape.

hÄbinngTfoÜvlewwuthtHewkolfRïginkeeyvoeRd...

reply

The problem with this whole issue of credibility/scientific accuracy, which bothered me a lot despite the fun aspects of this movie, can be simplified by saying that there is not enough of it !

Let me explain myself. I read many times that "Space Cowboys" was a comedy. Well, I'd personally opt rather for the term satire here, but the point is that there are many aspects in this movie that cannot be treated realistically or scientifically or else, the movie would miss its point at depicting how a bunch of daredevil geezers manage to live the last great mission/adventure of their lives at the expense of a prejudiced technocratic establishment. And there are all the side stories, the little bits of humor with the various characters, especially James Garner the crazy pastor and Donald Sutherland the sex-driven engineer... Much of the plot is arch-simplified and simplistic, but stays within the realm of what works as a comedy. And to be funny, a story cannot be told at the first degree from A to Z. There must be elements of fantasy, lots of them, to make us forget about the scientifically improbable, especially when dealing with that particular subject matter...

Back to the inaccuracies of the script, I think the movie tries to include too many scientific and technical details to give a varnish of credibility to the film. What is missing, really, is a more complete commitment to comedy, which would have made the flight to the moon, the sounds of metal in total vacuum, and the problems with numbers (altitude, times, distances, etc.) rather trivial and in fact, totally unimportant. The movie is NOT a well-documented semi-fictional satire with a scientifically realistic and sound plot, such as "The Right Stuff" (which it resembles superficially). It does not play at that level.

The author(s) of the script could have spent less time researching the technical aspects of the plot so that they would have been less tempted by the exhibition of knowledge (always the same trap!), and more by the inner workings, the mechanics of comedy.

reply

It was NOT propelled by nuclear rockets, the missiles were just attached to it.

His character, Hawk, detached the missiles some time before letting the Moon's gravitational pull take him in. Otherwise he would have blown up the Moon.

Also, the Moon's gravity is much weaker than that of Earth, and acceleration is 16.7% of what we have on Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_of_the_Moon), which also means that the man wouldn't weigh 200 lb. on the Moon, but a little over 30 lb. instead. I don't know what that would mean exactly for a body that's actually falling from space, but perhaps it wouldn't be just a splattered bloody mess.


reply

The ending was merely Frank's vision/dream of Hawk's landing. :-)

reply