Gravity

Post by **rdhopeca** » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:12 pm

Anyone seen it yet? I saw it last night and was impressed by the realism of the visuals for sure. Looked and felt like outer space. And I for one didn't object at all to Bullock's acting in this either. Others have, but I found it to be credible myself...

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:56 pm

The words "next Avatar" has been mentioned around this movie. I guess the visuals are stunning, and it's recommended that you see it in 3D. I am hoping to see it.

Did you see it in 3D? IMAX? I'm curious if it matters.

Post by **rdhopeca** » Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:05 pm

2D. I hate 3D (I wear glasses) and don't have an IMAX nearby.

Post by **Orlion** » Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:24 pm

I saw it in 3D and it was fantastic.

Post by **Zarathustra** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:44 pm

Looks good. Might have to see it.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:08 pm

It isn't out here for more than a month, but I've been looking forward to it since the first trailer I saw in the cinema, and it'll be the first film I see in 3D. (Even though I said I'd only watch something filmed natively in 3D. This is 3D rendered effects with post production on the rest, but it's getting enough praise to make me try it.)

Post by **aTOMiC** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:52 pm

Saw Gravity in 3d a week or so ago. Its one of those game changing films that have to be experienced to be believed. Stunning. Absolutely stunning film making. I'd be happy to see it again in an instant. In my opinion it deserves all of the praise it has gotten. So engrossing I actually felt a little queasy (in a good way) which never happens to me.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:02 pm

I just got back from it. Amazing film, easily the best I've seen this year. And the 3D worked really well, far better than I expected.

I'm now totally sold on it being possible to make great 3D films. Now we just need to convince people they don't have to run twice as many ads in front of 3D films.

(3D trailers, on the other hand, are the worst thing ever.)

Post by **peter** » Mon Nov 18, 2013 12:26 pm

Wow! Wow! Wow!

I can't think of another film where the story is so subordinate to the spectacle - and the story is great too! 3D is a must for this film - it works so well and is so integral to the spectacle/story that not to see it as it is meant to be seen is to get only half the experience [and I'm guessing even that would be an experience]. Sandra Bullock is great [none of that kooky foot turned in shit here] and gives the performance of a lifetime. See this film no matter what you have to do to make it happen.

[nb The bigger the screen the better. My guess is that to see this on an IMAX in 3D would give you a better experience of what it is like to be in space than spending £1000,000 to go up in one of Richard Bransons tourist shuttles if they ever happen]

One question - when George Clooney is on the end of the rope and Sandra Bullock is holding on to the other, he says to her that she can survive by making it to the 'hatch' etc, but that he cannot and must let go of the rope. This he does and off he goes into space on his tod. Question - where did he get the momentum from [or where was the force needed to change his momentum] in order to fly off. Surely the rope had arrested his momentum and in letting go he would just have remained motionless [or in the same relative motion] as he was befor letting go?

Post by **lorin** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 4:29 pm

I just saw this. Amazing.

peter wrote:One question - when George Clooney is on the end of the rope and Sandra Bullock is holding on to the other, he says to her that she can survive by making it to the 'hatch' etc, but that he cannot and must let go of the rope. This he does and off he goes into space on his tod. Question - where did he get the momentum from [or where was the force needed to change his momentum] in order to fly off. Surely the rope had arrested his momentum and in letting go he would just have remained motionless [or in the same relative motion] as he was befor letting go?

Excellent question, no answer. There were, IMO a couple of tech errors that didn't effect the film much. Another was in the Russian space station, the computer was reading the pressure and other info in English.

Alfonso Cuaron summed up the film. I love this interpretation.

"You have a character who's drifting into the void and is getting farther and farther away from human communication. It's a character that lives in her own bubble and is a victim of her own inertia. So it was a moment in which she has to come out of her own bubble and metaphorically shed her skin. She gets out of that suit and soon she's in her primordial state. The film deals with rebirth, and this is the first hint of that - the first moment that it's done visually in a more explicit way. This is a character who's been surrounded by death and, on the verge of it, finally finds peace and repose."

Remember the scene where Bullock is talking to Anningaaq over the radio? Well apparently the director made a companion film called Annigaaq. It is actually a short scene of the Inuit she was talking to from his perspective. Interesting little film of the same conversation.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLR1yCvu498

www.ropeofsilicon.com/gravity-short-fil ... vd-bluray/

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:53 pm

Wasn't the damaged station spinning? That's why they kept flying off.

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:57 pm

Haven't seen this, because I haven't seen Gravity. But if you have seen that, you may want to see this.

Check Out Jonas Cuaron's GRAVITY Tie-In Short, ANINGAAQ!

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:14 am

I saw this again last night, again in 3D. Really great film, very impressive.

I still hate 3D trailers, but at least they only showed one this time. (They did the "put on your glasses now" bit, first trailer was 3D, then all the rest weren't.)

lorin wrote:Excellent question, no answer. There were, IMO a couple of tech errors that didn't effect the film much. Another was in the Russian space station, the computer was reading the pressure and other info in English.

That station was the ISS, which only has a half-Russian crew.

Post by **SoulBiter** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:18 pm

Saw this the other night. It was good, but to me not great. Maybe because I didnt see it in 3d it didnt have the same impact to me.

Below are the things that I thought they could have done better to make the movie more consistant. These did not take away from what was going on but they were the things that make you go 'huh?' during the movie.

So as someone else pointed out, where did the inertia come from that made Sandra bullock need to let go of George Clooney? Since his movement had already stopped, there should have been no 'pull' that would require that. If she was being pulled back, then since they were attached to each other, he was as well and the inertia would have sent him to her not away.

While in the Soyuz and she doesnt know how to start the landing process, she starts guessing what buttons to push and somehow, she gets that right, on the second try and its a single button that makes that happen.

As the Shenzhou capsule breaks free of the Tiangong, the Tiangong is breaking apart as it is hitting the atmosphere. Entering the atmosphere is a very tricky thing, you hit at the wrong angle and you bounce off, or you burn up because you arent able to dispell enough heat to overcome the heat generated by re-entry. Yet somehow the capsule hits that just right and doesnt burn up. Even though systems are burning up all around her, the systems still see to work enough for the parachute to work.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:24 pm

I don't think she was guessing buttons in the Soyuz - she did in the Shenzhou, which is very similar to the Soyuz in its design and controls, enough that she had a rough idea of what to hit.

Post by **ChoChiyo** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:16 pm

Okay--first, I saw the movie in 2-d because my mother went with me and she is blind in one eye and didn't see the point in paying the extra money for 3-d. Plus, I must confess--though I am phobic about very little in life--I am phobic about wearing those 3-D glasses which have been worn by God Alone Knows how many other people who MAY be infected with head lice.

And the spectacle isn't as valuable to me as the story.

That said, I must admit that I found the movie very boring and barely tolerable. Sandra Bullock did a nice job of acting, but I have seen and read thousands of science fiction stories, and this, in my opinion, was lackluster, predictable, and not emotionally engaging.

Silent Running was a great science fiction movie. 2001: A Space Odyssey was a great science fiction movie. Avatar was a great science fiction movie (didn't see that in 3-D either). Gravity was a special effects marathan with a little bit of emotive acting from Sandra Bullock who would shine in anything she appeared in.

Given a choice between seeing this again and watching Sharknado on the SciFi Channel....I'd take a nap.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:29 pm

In my experience you buy your own brand new pair of glasses, no prior use.

Post by **ChoChiyo** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:36 pm

I'm Murrin wrote:In my experience you buy your own brand new pair of glasses, no prior use.

Nope. Around here, you pay extra for the movie, then have to turn the glasses back in by dropping them in a big barrel outside the theater before you leave.

I suppose it is the local theaters trying to save a few bucks.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:51 pm

Hmm. Here you pay more for the ticket regardless (£9 for 3D, £7.50 for 2D), and you just buy the glasses for £1 the first time you need them. Shame if they're doing it differently there.

Post by **finn** » Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:49 am

Fantastic cinematography and the science was mostly there, good cast (both of them) but oh for want of a story that was not.....even just a little bit less ludicrous!

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Gravity

Gravity