The realistic detail I remember from that movie is that the drones had plausible-looking reaction control thrusters (like those from missile interceptors [1]).

The realistic detail I remember from that movie is that the drones had plausible-looking reaction control thrusters (like those from missile interceptors [1]). There's a behind-the-scenes video that mentions the idea and has some (spoiling) shots from the film. [2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnofCyaWhI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnofCyaWhI0 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfg84vgO73Q&t=116s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfg84vgO73Q&t=116s == Tangential physics nitpick == In a scene (spoilers, [3]) where a hovering drone is firing its side-mounted autocannon turrets, the reaction thruster animation doesn't match what's needed to counter the torque from the recoil: 1. The drone begins by firing both port and starboard turrets forward--no torque from recoil here, only backwards force that is countered by the drone's gimballed main thruster. 2. The drone ceases firing its starboard turret to slew it towards a target directly behind it. Of the aft-facing reaction thrusters visible in the shot, only the starboard ones are firing. But this would exacerbate the torque of the still-firing port turret instead of countering it! 3. The starboard turret finishes targeting and begins firing aft, but the reaction thruster animation remains unchanged. Of course, this level of detail already far exceeds expectations, considering that this all happens in less than a second, and that there's no impact on viewing experience when fast-moving effects don't stand up to frame-by-frame scrubbing. [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5yh0qeOHU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5yh0qeOHU