Another plot contrivance…
I was reading some of the comments about the ending at the IMDb...
"You missed the part where Sandra Bullock gets attacked by a tiger on the beach and gets eaten."
"The film actually ends with Sandra Bullock collapsing from exhaustion and dying after being left to the elements for seven days. Serbian children find her bloated corpse washed ashore and poke at it with a stick. G R A V I T Y"
"It would have ended better if Matt's flaming body landed on her."
As for the 3D, it wasn't essential but it looked good. Fortunately it didn't have that pop-up book look.
My comment was tongue in cheek, simply because we tend to play fast and loose with what counts as SF/F here. If James Bond counts, then this should too.
Ah yeah, I seem to be taking a lot of these comments too seriously these days.
However, to be serious about it, I really don't think this counts as science fiction. It's a drama set in space, but does that automatically make it science fiction? Doesn't there have to be a speculative element to the science in order for it to be science fiction? Would a movie about deep sea diving (set in the present day, with real world science) be science fiction? Would Cast Away be classified as science fiction? Would Contagion be classified as science fiction?
Deep Sea Diving: I'd say no, unles it dealt with a truly compelling "what if" scenario.
Cast Away: No.
Contagion: I'm leaning towards yes.
, it's a fine line. I can go either way. I don't have much to support the scifi argument outside of it feeling scifi-ish because of its "what if" scenario in a still relatively new frontier.