Let's get one thing straight here: Once Inception hits theaters next month, geek-blog-darling-of-the-moment status must be transferred over to Alfonso Cuarón's forthcoming Gravity, which is easily -- almost objectively -- the most exciting movie in the production pipeline. A sci-fi thriller (oooh) from one of the most absurdly talented filmmakers in the business (aaah) that we now learn (via The Playlist) is supposed to open with a twenty-minute take (wheeeee!) and combine live-action and extensive CGI a lá Avatar (swoon) -- I want it now.

This Gravity, which starts filming this summer, will star Angelina Jolie and Robert Downey Jr., and will be about a sole survivor of a space disaster who fights to return to her daughter on Earth. But there's another Gravity in the early stages of development -- a movie about "a father who has to search for his lost child as the world stops spinning and Earth begins to lose its gravity." Louis Leterrier, whose Clash of the Titans was only marginally more ridiculous, may direct.

But now wait a minute. /Film, where I first read about Leterrier's film, has a number of good questions about its premise, not least how zero-g action scenes are supposed to function, and what exactly made the Earth stop spinning. But I have a more fundamental one -- I'm, uh, pretty sure that if the Earth were to stop spinning, gravity would not disappear. Gravity's a function of mass, not rotation. (Though some other stuff might happen if the Earth stopped spinning; for one thing, it would probably bring a new meaning to the phrase "climate change.")


In fairness, the logline does not explicitly state a causality between the two phenomena -- they could be independent, or both caused by something else. But what? I'm no physicist, but for something to lose its gravity would require fundamental changes in the fabric of space, wouldn't it? Like, undoing general relativity? What would that take?

Einstein is rolling in his grave. I, on the other hand, am intrigued.