homepage

Gravity

Posted By: Navigator

Gravity - 09/10/13 04:12 AM

Looks good can't wait.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 09/10/13 04:20 AM

I'll probably see this in the theatre even though I'm not a big fan of either Bullock or Clooney.
Posted By: No Name

Re: Gravity - 09/10/13 09:10 AM

There was a post about this flick on these forums a few days ago
Posted By: Patrocles

Re: Gravity - 09/10/13 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Navigator


+1
cowboy
Posted By: Raw Kryptonite

Re: Gravity - 09/10/13 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
I'll probably see this in the theatre even though I'm not a big fan of either Bullock or Clooney.


I'll see it at home. I like both actors, but not so much in scifi (other than Demolition Man for Sandra).
So far I haven't seen enough about the movie to actually generate interest. All I've seen is that one "everything goes to hell" scene.
Posted By: Navigator

Re: Gravity - 10/04/13 04:50 PM

Its getting very good ratings so far.
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/04/13 05:00 PM

I may see this tomorrow tonight. If I do I'll post my spoiler-free review.
Posted By: Master

Re: Gravity - 10/04/13 05:26 PM

I'll save you the ending. In the very end they try to save her with a tether gun but it comes up a foot short and while they are rewinding the gun to try again she takes her helmet off to prevent them from wasting too much time to save her so that they can get back and be saved themselves.
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/04/13 05:33 PM

Lol Master.
Posted By: kestrel79

Re: Gravity - 10/04/13 05:34 PM

Anyone think it's worth seeing in IMAX 3D? I saw it's playing in Madison. Might be cool with all the space scenes.
Posted By: Cold_Flying

Re: Gravity - 10/04/13 06:03 PM

Sandra Bullock is so cute. yep
Posted By: No Name

Re: Gravity - 10/04/13 10:51 PM

Until she opens her mouth
Posted By: Raw Kryptonite

Re: Gravity - 10/04/13 11:36 PM

She's a cool chick, down to earth and not afraid to be funny like most hot women. Jesse James was an idiot. Shocker, I know.
Posted By: knightgames

Re: Gravity - 10/05/13 01:57 AM

I saw Gravity this afternoon. If you're going for story and story alone wait for DVD. I don't mean that as a bad thing because there is enough to keep your attention. The hero of the story isn't the two actors but the SFX and cinematography. The scenery is awe inspiring as they travel across the Earth. I don't know if they did the zero gravity scenes like they did for The Right Stuff or if it was all CGI, but it looked good while things float past the camera of the actors try to manage themselves in their environment. As far as waiting for DVD, I think it's a visual feast that deserves to be seen on the large screen. It really makes an impact of the enormity of space and the beauty of our planet. I don't think I'd get that same perspective on TV and for me it was worth the asking price of admission.

As I said, if story is your only concern (after all it's only a survival movie and how deep can that go?) you should probably wait. There were some panic inducing moments, acted well by Sandra. Clooney is his dry humour self, but makes a believable veteran astronaut. I wasn't disappointed, but I knew very little going in.


Sandra has got really really nice legs.


EDIT: re 3d. I wasn't too keen on paying the asking price for 3D so I decided on standard 4K resolution flat image. There were a few scenes you knew were especially shot for the 3D effect. Other times, seeing the flotsam entering and exiting the screen would add a lot to the effect and atmosphere. If the asking price isn't an issue I'd see it in 3D, though it's not mandatory to enjoy he flick.
Posted By: THX-1138

Re: Gravity - 10/05/13 05:36 AM

Originally Posted By: knightgames
Sandra has got really really nice legs.


I truly understand! Wonderful girl!

Posted By: Kodiak

Re: Gravity - 10/05/13 08:21 AM

Originally Posted By: knightgames


Sandra has got really really nice legs.



Yes, and what a beautiful figure also!
If you saw the film Miss Congeniality you know what I mean.
I also like her attitude, she's an okay lady.
I would not say no to her!

My best regards, Kodiak.
Posted By: Billzilla

Re: Gravity - 10/05/13 10:18 AM



You're welcome.
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/05/13 11:56 PM

I only watched "Miss Congeniality" because Michael Caine and William Shatner were in it.
Posted By: Billzilla

Re: Gravity - 10/06/13 04:36 AM

HOLY CRAP THAT WAS GOOD!!!
I'm drained after watching it. Mostly pretty realistic but a lot of the procedural stuff wasn't very close. (takes about four or five hours to get a space suit ready to use and the wearer needs help getting into it, etc)
9/10
Posted By: Navigator

Re: Gravity - 10/06/13 08:37 PM

It got $55mil on opening weekend. And Sandra is hot imo
Posted By: CyBerkut

Re: Gravity - 10/06/13 10:52 PM

I just saw it in 3D (only option available at this theater) this afternoon. I enjoyed the movie, but then, I seem to be less discerning than some folks I've seen, when it comes to movies. I'll second Billzilla's procedural comment, but it's easy to give them a pass on that (Gotta keep the story moving, don'cha know!).

Clooney was about what you'd expect. Bullock brought her "A" game. Her role was more challenging, with more room to stretch out in.

I thought the cinematography was very good, and definitely justified the expense of seeing it in the theater. That's coming from someone who doesn't catch many movies in the theater any more, (and has come to view most of what comes out of Hollywood as drivel).
Posted By: toonces

Re: Gravity - 10/07/13 02:16 AM

Originally Posted By: knightgames
I saw Gravity this afternoon. If you're going for story and story alone wait for DVD. I don't mean that as a bad thing because there is enough to keep your attention. The hero of the story isn't the two actors but the SFX and cinematography. The scenery is awe inspiring as they travel across the Earth. I don't know if they did the zero gravity scenes like they did for The Right Stuff or if it was all CGI, but it looked good while things float past the camera of the actors try to manage themselves in their environment. As far as waiting for DVD, I think it's a visual feast that deserves to be seen on the large screen. It really makes an impact of the enormity of space and the beauty of our planet. I don't think I'd get that same perspective on TV and for me it was worth the asking price of admission.

As I said, if story is your only concern (after all it's only a survival movie and how deep can that go?) you should probably wait. There were some panic inducing moments, acted well by Sandra. Clooney is his dry humour self, but makes a believable veteran astronaut. I wasn't disappointed, but I knew very little going in.


Sandra has got really really nice legs.


EDIT: re 3d. I wasn't too keen on paying the asking price for 3D so I decided on standard 4K resolution flat image. There were a few scenes you knew were especially shot for the 3D effect. Other times, seeing the flotsam entering and exiting the screen would add a lot to the effect and atmosphere. If the asking price isn't an issue I'd see it in 3D, though it's not mandatory to enjoy he flick.


I saw this yesterday in IMAX 3D and I'd pretty much agree with this post. The story is OK, and good enough, but really the movie appears to have been shot to view in 3D. It really was amazing in 3D and I would highly recommend seeing it that way. My wife bought the tickets, so I don't know how much they cost (and I guess I don't really want to know now). While the movie itself is ok, what it really does is knock your socks off with some amazing space cinematography.

Once it gets going it doesn't let up for the whole movie. I was pretty emotionally exhausted by the end!
Posted By: Sluggish Controls

Re: Gravity - 10/07/13 04:44 AM

Also watched it in 3D over the weekend.
Like everyone else here, the story is on rails from opening till end, no real surprise. However, if one movie needed to be filmed in 3D, it had to be this one, fantastic.

Cheers,
Slug
Posted By: Bearcat99

Re: Gravity - 10/07/13 11:13 AM

Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
I'll probably see this in the theater even though I'm not a big fan of either Bullock or Clooney.


I like them both... so I am looking forward to this.

I think Bullock is real easy on the eyes .. even as she ages.. and Clooney is our generation's Redford in some of the films he is making.. I even like his goofy comedy stuff like O Brother Where Art Thou, Burn after Reading and Leatherheads..

This will be one of those solo movies that I treat myself to.
Posted By: pescador11

Re: Gravity - 10/07/13 04:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Bearcat99
Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
I'll probably see this in the theater even though I'm not a big fan of either Bullock or Clooney.


I like them both... so I am looking forward to this.

I think Bullock is real easy on the eyes .. even as she ages.. and Clooney is our generation's Redford in some of the films he is making.. I even like his goofy comedy stuff like O Brother Where Art Thou, Burn after Reading and Leatherheads..

This will be one of those solo movies that I treat myself to.
Two of my favorite actors. Great point about Clooney being this generation's Redford. Can't wait to see this movie.
pescador
Posted By: pescador11

Re: Gravity - 10/07/13 04:07 PM

Originally Posted By: knightgames
I saw Gravity this afternoon. If you're going for story and story alone wait for DVD. I don't mean that as a bad thing because there is enough to keep your attention. The hero of the story isn't the two actors but the SFX and cinematography. The scenery is awe inspiring as they travel across the Earth. I don't know if they did the zero gravity scenes like they did for The Right Stuff or if it was all CGI, but it looked good while things float past the camera of the actors try to manage themselves in their environment. As far as waiting for DVD, I think it's a visual feast that deserves to be seen on the large screen. It really makes an impact of the enormity of space and the beauty of our planet. I don't think I'd get that same perspective on TV and for me it was worth the asking price of admission.

As I said, if story is your only concern (after all it's only a survival movie and how deep can that go?) you should probably wait. There were some panic inducing moments, acted well by Sandra. Clooney is his dry humour self, but makes a believable veteran astronaut. I wasn't disappointed, but I knew very little going in.


Sandra has got really really nice legs.


EDIT: re 3d. I wasn't too keen on paying the asking price for 3D so I decided on standard 4K resolution flat image. There were a few scenes you knew were especially shot for the 3D effect. Other times, seeing the flotsam entering and exiting the screen would add a lot to the effect and atmosphere. If the asking price isn't an issue I'd see it in 3D, though it's not mandatory to enjoy he flick.
Thinking about buying the Right Stuff. I've heard nothing but good things about it. I wonder if the BluRay edition is worth it?
Pescador1
Posted By: Raw Kryptonite

Re: Gravity - 10/07/13 05:25 PM

The Right Stuff is one of the best movies out there, as well as one of the most perfectly cast. Go for it with confidence.
I'll never forget seeing that on the big screen.
Posted By: pescador11

Re: Gravity - 10/07/13 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Raw Kryptonite
The Right Stuff is one of the best movies out there, as well as one of the most perfectly cast. Go for it with confidence.
I'll never forget seeing that on the big screen.
Thanks Kryptonite. I'm definitely going for the BluRay.
Pescador
Posted By: letterboy1

Re: Gravity - 10/07/13 10:15 PM

The Right Stuff. LOVE. THIS. MOVIE!
Posted By: JimK

Re: Gravity - 10/08/13 01:20 AM

Gotta love what Neil De Grasse critiques Gravity about.

http://moviepilot.com/stories/1139098-ne...i-movie-channel
Posted By: THX-1138

Re: Gravity - 10/08/13 01:40 AM

I will take it that many of you that have enjoyed this movie at least own ORBITER and/or KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM (KSP)!!!
Posted By: Raw Kryptonite

Re: Gravity - 10/08/13 05:33 AM

For Clooney, I wish they had pursued his character in The Peacemaker for more movies. That and The American were both excellent IMO.
Posted By: Bearcat99

Re: Gravity - 10/08/13 11:31 AM

Originally Posted By: pescador11
Originally Posted By: Bearcat99
Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
I'll probably see this in the theater even though I'm not a big fan of either Bullock or Clooney.


I like them both... so I am looking forward to this.

I think Bullock is real easy on the eyes .. even as she ages.. and Clooney is our generation's Redford in some of the films he is making.. I even like his goofy comedy stuff like O Brother Where Art Thou, Burn after Reading and Leatherheads..

This will be one of those solo movies that I treat myself to.
Two of my favorite actors. Great point about Clooney being this generation's Redford. Can't wait to see this movie.
pescador


That monologue at the end of Michael Clayton is priceless.. "Are you so stupid ypu don't even know who I am??!!.. I'm not the guy you kill!! I'm the guy you buy!!" One of my all time favorites along with "... that's right... I've killed women and children..... " and "I take it you don't even care about the part you had in breaking one of the best men you will ever know.... " and quite a few others..

Originally Posted By: pescador11
Thinking about buying the Right Stuff. I've heard nothing but good things about it. I wonder if the BluRay edition is worth it?
Pescador1

A great film.. Yeager himself does two cameos in there...

Originally Posted By: Raw Kryptonite
For Clooney, I wish they had pursued his character in The Peacemaker for more movies. That and The American were both excellent IMO.


Yeah those were good.. I liked Syriana as well.. the character was very complex...
Posted By: GrimLeo

Re: Gravity - 10/08/13 10:52 PM

Saw Gravity. It is a very good movie that didn't piss me off as much as I expected it too.

It of course is technically wrong:
Click to reveal..
This guy covers the most of the big issues. Different Orbital Inclinations is biggest. In plane changes are fairly easy. Out of plane changes are a bear (Your changing a 7.8 KILOMETER per SECOND vector).
To his list I would add the following:
  • The reentry module of the Shenzhou is in a out of control tumble at the entry interface. Even with a functional attitude control system (movie is unclear of it's status) it is unlikely to get into heat shield forward attitude.
  • Assuming your are even in the correct reentry angle. Too steep you burn up, Too shallow and you skip off the atmosphere.
  • The odds are you land in deep ocean. 72% of Earth surface is ocean, granted you should calculate percentage based on the orbit's ground track. As per the article, Orbital Inclinations are chosen to maximize radio coverage, thus time over land of the launching country.
Posted By: Billzilla

Re: Gravity - 10/09/13 12:08 AM

Originally Posted By: GrimLeo
The reentry module of the Shenzhou is in a out of control tumble at the entry interface. Even with a functional attitude control system (movie is unclear of it's status) it is unlikely to get into heat shield forward attitude.


The Russian (and hence Chinese) modules are designed to be dynamically stable so they'll fall heat-shield first without any active assistance. It's done with a combination of the centre of gravity position and aerodynamics.
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/09/13 03:23 AM

Ultimate nerd talk like this is why I love SimHQ so much. smile
Posted By: Ajay

Re: Gravity - 10/09/13 05:08 AM

Sandra. Hot..and can act..tick.

Space. Tick

Clooney. Interesting (and not Channing Tatum)..tick

Will be seeing on Saturday, been really looking forward to see this on the big screen smile
Posted By: Ssnake

Re: Gravity - 10/09/13 08:54 PM

I found the Hollywood Bullsh!t factor to be comparatively minimal except maybe that they never really explain why all the debris is in an opposed orbit (how else would you get that monstrous chain reaction) - but I'm willing to accept that as the basic premise of the scenario and from that on it appeared mostly credible.

The visuals are superb. It definitely is prime Big Screen material. 3D isn't necessary (as usual) - but probably unavoidable (as usual).


Watched in a late-night double feature together with Rush, and now the memories are fighting each other in my head. I recommend both, though maybe not on the same evening.
Posted By: QuantumPeep

Re: Gravity - 10/09/13 10:56 PM

My wife and I saw it a couple of hours ago in 3D. Great movie, both my left hand and left leg still hurt from my wife´s grip. Was a bit too exciting for her lol. I'd say 3D is worth it for this and big screen a absolute must.
Posted By: kilosierra

Re: Gravity - 10/10/13 08:36 PM

Just back from the theater, saw it in 3D.

Awesome footage. I liked the scenes, where the space stations were torn apart in silence.

And of course: Sandra. She`s two years older than me, but she aged far better, lol....

[Nerd] In the German dubbed version, they said, there were Com-sats hit, aren`t they at a 36,000 km orbit, not at 600 km? [/Nerd]
Posted By: Ssnake

Re: Gravity - 10/11/13 12:02 AM

Maybe the Iridium network. wink
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Gravity - 10/17/13 06:08 PM

Not all comm sats are in geosync orbit. The direcTV ones are lower orbit IIRC, that's why you can use a tiny dish to get the signal instead of a vast multi-meter one.




The Jedi Master
Posted By: Ssnake

Re: Gravity - 10/17/13 10:04 PM

Ten days later, I still vividly recall the visuals of this film. Yes, it is a good one. If you still haven't seen it, do it while you can still watch it on a BIG SCREEN. No matter how big your TV set is, it won't be big enough. wink
Posted By: PV1

Re: Gravity - 10/18/13 05:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Not all comm sats are in geosync orbit. The direcTV ones are lower orbit IIRC, that's why you can use a tiny dish to get the signal instead of a vast multi-meter one.

The Jedi Master


If it needs a dish, it's geosynchronous, regardless of size.
Non-geosync would be coming from anywhere, you'd need a
non-directional antenna.
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/21/13 03:03 AM

Just saw this tonight and I absolutely loved it. I enjoy films with lots of tension and this had it in spades.

It's amazing how well this film functioned with a bare minimum cast.
Posted By: Patrocles

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 12:55 AM

Originally Posted By: QuantumPeep
My wife and I saw it a couple of hours ago in 3D. Great movie, both my left hand and left leg still hurt from my wife´s grip. Was a bit too exciting for her lol. I'd say 3D is worth it for this and big screen a absolute must.


I watched 'Gravity' on Sunday at the Imax3D. bloody impressive!

I kept myself in a Gravity review/publicity-free environment until seeing the film and it was worth it. I was not impressed with the 3D graphics in 'Avatar' and expected something similar in this film, but I was wrong. The 3D effects are simply amazing and put to good use.

'Gravity' is a much better film than Oblivion and Star Trek Into Darkness. It will be interesting to see how Ender's Game turns out; the preview in Imax looked good. The 3D preview of the next Hobbit release did not work for me. It appeared as if the characters was standing in front of a flat backdrop? really weird...

Anyway, I recommend seeing the film in Imax3D if possible. cowboy
Posted By: AWL_Spinner

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 07:32 AM

What an excellent film. Really enjoyed it.

Totally unexpected - trailer looked super formulaic but the movie was way better than both the previews and the marketing (to be fair, word of mouth has been stellar - very unusual for a movie in this day and age).

So impressed with the fact the crap hit the fan in the first ten minutes and the film didn't let up from that point forward. I was TOTALLY expecting a change of gear with a flashback to earlier in the mission, usual preamble, by-the-numbers character building, blah blah.

How refreshing to see a different approach!
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 11:03 AM

I have to say that I was expecting "Gravity" to bomb at the box office. Original scifi is always a tough sell but I think what made this film connect with audiences was the incredibly well made tension and emotion.
Posted By: AWL_Spinner

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 04:34 PM

Much as I don't like deference to "names", having Bullock and Clooney as the two leads probably helped get the movie over critical mass where there were enough people chattering about how good the FILM was to really drive the box office. Appeals to the Sci-Fi casuals.

Went last night and the theater was packed (tried to go last week and couldn't book a decent seat).
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 04:47 PM

Agreed. I don't think the film would have done as well had the two leads been no name actors.
Posted By: JAMF

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 08:02 PM

IMHO word of mouth contributed much more. How many would still go see a movie with two names, when a friend says "It had x and y, but it was not worth the time and money."?
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 08:07 PM

Any guesses on where Sandra Bullock's character ended up landing at the end? I'm guessing the west coast of Africa.
Posted By: AWL_Spinner

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 08:19 PM

Oh I agree JAMF, I went to see it because of word of mouth and I'm sure that will end up contributing the bulk of receipts. My point was that you need a push to get the snowball rolling and for what might otherwise have been a short-lived arthouse sci-fi a couple of recognizable names helps (especially with marketing).
Posted By: JAMF

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 08:52 PM

Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
Any guesses on where Sandra Bullock's character ended up landing at the end? I'm guessing the west coast of Africa.


IIRC the FM radio sounded like an English broadcaster speaking at the beginning or end of a song, sounding American even.
Posted By: Ssnake

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 09:00 PM

I was expecting Hollywood to butcher orbital mechanics in a horrendous way - and was positively surprised (easy to do if you have near-zero expectations, of course). Considering what's par for the course, it's almost a miracle that the film turned out to be what it was. I mean, seriously: In all likelihood it should have been so much more the usual drivel. Cast and superb photography / SFX certainly helped with general acceptance.

We had a discussion as to which this film was actually to be considered "science fiction". I argued that it was a mere drama film that happened to be located in space. Aside from the initial incident and the Chinese space station there wasn't anything futuristic in it. Heh, with Space Shuttles still flying one could even say that it was decidedly retro. wink
Posted By: AWL_Spinner

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 09:41 PM

Well, Star Wars was set a long time ago and that was certainly Science Fiction smile
Posted By: Ssnake

Re: Gravity - 10/23/13 10:31 PM

I'm sorry, but again I have to disagree. Star Wars is pure Fantasy. Fantasy that happens to play a lot in space, admittedly, but just because we associate cold, irradiated vacuum with "science fiction" doesn't lend any scientific credibility to Jedis, howling TIE fighters, visible laser beams, planetary destruction devices, and aerodynamic movement outside of an atmosphere. Star Wars revives strong Fantasy archetypes and clads them in futuristic looks, but pretty much anything in it is undiluted Fantasy.

That doesn't detract anything from its value, mind you. There just isn't any science in this fiction.
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/24/13 03:04 AM

Heh, when I think "fantasy" I always think of elves, wizards, dragons, orcs, magic, etc.

If it has space travel, aliens and futuristic technology then it's science fiction.

smile
Posted By: Rick.50cal

Re: Gravity - 10/24/13 03:07 AM

Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
I have to say that I was expecting "Gravity" to bomb at the box office. Original scifi is always a tough sell but I think what made this film connect with audiences was the incredibly well made tension and emotion.


How did it do for money/audience?


Oh, and for the record, I saw this in 3D, the first movie I REALLY wanted to see in 3D...and I agree it was not only good, but great!

As for realism, yea, there ARE a few shortcommings, the time to get ready for space walks for one thing, the improbability/impossibility that shuttle, ISS and Shenzen station would all be just an hour or two away from each other is just rediculous.

Oh, and the Jet pack? My brother thought it had a very short time/fuel use, but turns out the wiki on it states the earlier MMU had a useage of around 6 hours! But at a max velocity (relative to whatever orbit speed you already have, of course) of 88 feet per second (24m per second), I'm calculating that 6 hours linear travel would only get you 504 km (314 miles). Now, I'm no rocket scientist...or even much good at math, but I'm guessing 300 miles is utterly useless to get from a shuttle on an unrelated mission, to the ISS unless the satelite (Hubble??) in question was out of control and dangerously close to the ISS in the first place (no impression of this was given in the movie). Not to mention that Clooney states that he was mostly out of fuel, having expended most of it during flight testing before the emergency (and movie) began. Which from what I'm gathering, suggests he really only had enough fuel to travel perhaps 25-50 miles to the ISS. Not including

Click to reveal..
rescuing Sandra from her out of control spin, or trying to rendevous with the shuttle before going ISS



And yet...none of that mattered to me in the movie...because they tried so hard to make so much of the movie realistic, that the few items that weren't, could be easily forgiven as nessisary plot devices to have the story in the first place. I mean, I think it's fair to say that in the real world,
Click to reveal..
Sandra's intial spining velocity after the first impacts at the shuttle rescue would be virtually impossible unless everything were absolutely perfect for Clooney to carry it out: him with a full fuel in tanks, her not drifting away at more than say 8 or 9m per second, otherwise catching her, stopping their inertia, and then getting going back for intercept to shuttle...just wouldn't happen. We'd have listened to a woman speaking her final words for an hour or a few, and then...well, space travel can be somewhat unforgiving for humans! biggrin


But again, I'm very far from rocket scientist! biggrin

It was nice to see Soyuz get some screen time in movies...that seems to be a seriously rare event! Though at one point I was rather hoping that the Russians might make their own "robot arm" that could cut parachutes! Frustrating scene, but then, that's the whole point of the movie!
Posted By: AWL_Spinner

Re: Gravity - 10/24/13 03:28 AM

Would seem very well!

$100m budget, taken $290m already worldwide: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gravity.htm

For comparative purposes, Trek into Darkness did 70m opening weekend, 37m second weekend, 16m third.

Gravity did 56m first, 43m second, 30m third so strong numbers for a non-franchise off the bat, and word of mouth is really holding numbers up.

Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/24/13 04:37 AM

Can anyone think of another film that had a cast of just 2?
Posted By: Rick.50cal

Re: Gravity - 10/24/13 05:12 AM

Originally Posted By: AWL_Spinner
Would seem very well!

$100m budget, taken $290m already worldwide: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gravity.htm

For comparative purposes, Trek into Darkness did 70m opening weekend, 37m second weekend, 16m third.

Gravity did 56m first, 43m second, 30m third so strong numbers for a non-franchise off the bat, and word of mouth is really holding numbers up.




Wow...yea, that DOES sound pretty darn good!

When I saw it in theatre, there was an elderly couple sitting beside me, probably in their mid-late 70's. I thought back to the last time I saw that happen...and figured it was probably some time in the late 80's or early 90's. And it occured to me that maybe they decided to see it based on word of mouth, and that this movie didn't depend on harsh swearing, sex gags and jokes, no stupid car chases or "gun play" and other irresponsible behavior. Just plain old fashioned survival drama, but with a somewhat unique setting, relentless realism (mostly) and a lot of care and quality. I've recommended my parents see this in theatres, and I rarely give such recommendations!

I'm sure that being adults during the famous "Space Race" probably had something to do with their interest in seeing the movie...I somehow doubt they went to see Prometheus, for example! biggrin
Posted By: Rick.50cal

Re: Gravity - 10/24/13 05:14 AM

Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
Can anyone think of another film that had a cast of just 2?


Moon


The guy and his smile robot.

Well, not including the
Click to reveal..
revelation that he is one of a whole bank of clones! But since he'd just be a copy of the same, we could still say yep it's just a cast of 2!



Dead Calm only had 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Calm_%28film%29

Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/24/13 10:48 AM

Ah yes I remember "Dead Calm" with a very young Nicole Kidman.
Posted By: theKhan

Re: Gravity - 10/24/13 12:40 PM

Watched last night in IMAX3D with the wife. Man what a great movie. The plot was about survival, but also touched so deeply on sacrifice, life, death and rebirth.

Throw the stunning visuals in there and its such a great film going experience.
Posted By: ArgonV

Re: Gravity - 10/25/13 04:40 AM

Saw it the other day in 3D, loved it. Great film all around.
Posted By: JAMF

Re: Gravity - 10/26/13 10:26 PM

Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
Can anyone think of another film that had a cast of just 2?


Did you forget the other astronaut with the Indian accent? Although we didn't see his face, he was there. winkngrin
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 10/27/13 12:21 AM

Originally Posted By: JAMF
Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
Can anyone think of another film that had a cast of just 2?


Did you forget the other astronaut with the Indian accent? Although we didn't see his face, he was there. winkngrin
No I didn't forget him but he doesn't count since when you do see his body it's all CGI. The deceased astronauts don't count!
Posted By: Ssnake

Re: Gravity - 10/27/13 08:44 AM

Actually, you GOT to see his face
Click to reveal..
well, what's left of it ... and a photo of him

However, given that no actors were killed in the making of this film, so I suppose that was CGI too.
Posted By: JAMF

Re: Gravity - 10/27/13 12:30 PM

That's why I had the Wink'n'Grin. smile
Posted By: Kontakt5

Re: Gravity - 11/07/13 06:44 AM

Visually engrossing film, I found the story cliched and boring. Even with the fantastic imagery, I was bored. Many scenes seemed coincidental or improbable, sentimental and dramatic in a way that was very predictable.

Click to reveal..
Clooney's character and performance resurrect about the most recycled cliche seen in every boy meets girl romantic comedy, even when he's killed before the romance is about to start, he's 'charming' when he's drifting off into space, cracking jokes and being entertaining while dying. Sandra Bullock's character is transparently manipulative- of course there had to be something sentimental like a dead child. An alternative cliche would have been she's trying to prove it to a deceased mentor or a father figure who believed in her when no one else did, coming up from the 'hood.
Posted By: Ssnake

Re: Gravity - 11/07/13 09:58 AM

I consider it as the price they probably had to pay to get the film funded at all ... or the fact that most science fiction work sucks by default when it comes to describing characters (which may be a result of the demographic of SF authors (and I consider myself belonging to that group)):

Posted By: Kontakt5

Re: Gravity - 11/07/13 05:17 PM

Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer

It's amazing how well this film functioned with a bare minimum cast.


There's buzz that All is Lost is already in Oscar contention, some are saying the best film to come out in years- and with only Robert Redford in the film and almost no dialogue.
Posted By: Kontakt5

Re: Gravity - 11/07/13 06:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Ssnake
... or the fact that most science fiction work sucks by default when it comes to describing characters (which may be a result of the demographic of SF authors (and I consider myself belonging to that group)):



I belong to a different group- the 'psychologist' in me reads people and their motivations, studies art as forms of propaganda or manipulative pieces. Sentiments are fine where they join a relevant story arc, but there are times when it's just saccharine, in other words so weak and contrived, case in point, that Robin Williams film Bicentennial Man.

I thought it was ironic that this film understood that making certain scenes occur in silence, as there is no atmospheric medium for sound to exist actually makes the film better- except by adding film score, dramatic theme music or danger music, that kind of undermines the psychological effect of being 'trapped' in an inhospitable environment as space.
Posted By: Ssnake

Re: Gravity - 11/07/13 11:49 PM

Don't get me wrong - I'm with you. The film would have been better that way. But cinema has never just been about art. First and foremost it is a business whose products occasionally - and rather incidentally - become art under fortunate circumstances.
Maybe I'm just too forgiving here. I can look over those deficits and accept them as necessary compromises to get investors on board to finance the whole project. Gravity is substantially different from most contemporary pictures in many areas already. Diversity as such is seen rather as a detriment among film investors. We may regret this, but it's a reality.
Posted By: Kontakt5

Re: Gravity - 11/08/13 12:21 AM

I understand completely- it's a business, surely.

What makes this scene so beautiful is that Kubrick doesn't use theme music- it's actually more effective without it, more chilling. Dr. Poole dies in a violent struggle- and it's as if it's not worthy of sound, a life snuffed out is meaningless against the endless backdrop of space that it doesn't elicit theme music. Nothing sentimental about it, but horrifying.



Theme music is by definition a manipulative component of a film- the filmmakers are trying to elicit the audience's emotional response, or have the audience's attention directed at something, or feel a certain way, or identify with something. Yet, the lack of music sometimes does it much better, particularly when it's consistent with the cold, silence of space...
Posted By: wheelsup_cavu

Re: Gravity - 11/08/13 03:11 AM

I can't say I saw what everyone else saw in the movie. I sat through the entire movie thinking when is this going to end. If I had went by myself I would have left after the initial accident that stranded them.


Wheels
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 11/08/13 03:55 AM

Even the "art house" film scene is a business in that independent studios don't decide to buy a film unless they specifically believe they can make money out of it.
Posted By: Plainsman

Re: Gravity - 11/08/13 04:58 AM

Originally Posted By: knightgames
I saw Gravity this afternoon. If you're going for story and story alone wait for DVD. I don't mean that as a bad thing because there is enough to keep your attention. The hero of the story isn't the two actors but the SFX and cinematography. The scenery is awe inspiring as they travel across the Earth. I don't know if they did the zero gravity scenes like they did for The Right Stuff or if it was all CGI, but it looked good while things float past the camera of the actors try to manage themselves in their environment. As far as waiting for DVD, I think it's a visual feast that deserves to be seen on the large screen. It really makes an impact of the enormity of space and the beauty of our planet. I don't think I'd get that same perspective on TV and for me it was worth the asking price of admission.

As I said, if story is your only concern (after all it's only a survival movie and how deep can that go?) you should probably wait. There were some panic inducing moments, acted well by Sandra. Clooney is his dry humour self, but makes a believable veteran astronaut. I wasn't disappointed, but I knew very little going in.


Sandra has got really really nice legs.


EDIT: re 3d. I wasn't too keen on paying the asking price for 3D so I decided on standard 4K resolution flat image. There were a few scenes you knew were especially shot for the 3D effect. Other times, seeing the flotsam entering and exiting the screen would add a lot to the effect and atmosphere. If the asking price isn't an issue I'd see it in 3D, though it's not mandatory to enjoy he flick.


Excellent film if you're a space fan. Outstanding even. But you must see it in 3D. I saw it twice, once in 3D and once in regular. It's a different movie in 3D. I'm not a fan of 3D. For me, 3D is a gimmick for 9 out of 10 movies. I refuse to waste my money on it. Notice 3D TVs have plummeted in price because they can't get rid of them. The 3D TV shows never emerged like the TV makers were gambling on. It's a gimmick. But in Gravity, it's a huge enhancer. You don't need IMAX, as long as you see it in at least standard 3D.

Oh yeah. By the way, I was NEVER bored. Not for one minute. I had to find out how it would end. Good screenwriting; the script actually made me care about the characters, and that's rare.

If anyone who saw it became bored, they probably didn't see the flick in 3D.
Posted By: Kontakt5

Re: Gravity - 11/08/13 05:52 AM

I saw it in 3D, IMax- it was boring in the way a chick can be good looking but boring. The reason why is that these characters were added to glue the special effects together, rather than a story about the characters, to me it was like every good looking CGI film yet not very arresting. The lead characters were good looking, the film was good looking, but it stopped there with me- of course, that's what they were going for. The astronauts who survived initially weren't going to be the others who might not be as attractive or something. The ones to survive are the ones who look like Hollywood A-list actors rather than what astronauts usually look and act like. Have you noticed how many people mentioned how hot Sandra Bullock is? That's no accident, that's deliberate. That's part of the pull that makes the film attractive.

Right off that bat I thought the chemistry between Clooney and Bullock was bogus- the filmmakers were trying to throw that in there really fast but the relied on stock formulas, even Bullock's character's name: Ryan Stone. What is it with the name Ryan in big marquee films, anyway?

Just throwing a layer of sentimental sap in there immediately with the dead child and Clooney's flirty, loveable frat dude, for me it was like the added romance in that awful film Pearl Harbor because a film centered around one event is hard to connect audiences with. These are story gimmicks just because as Ssnake alluded to, it's not necessarily the easiest thing in the world to write natural dialogue which connects audiences to characters, the easiest thing in the world to write in some tragedy to the backstory which is supposed to manipulate the audience into some feeling or identification with something deep going on without trying too hard- because a dead child, what could be more sentimental that? Cheap story point to get the audience. Bad storytelling. Lazy.

Now call me heartless, empty or shallow, but you have to work to get my attention. I've seen this all before, it's easy, and it's transparent to me. On the other hand, you get my praise, you've done something.
Posted By: wheelsup_cavu

Re: Gravity - 11/10/13 12:28 AM

Seeing it in 3D made it no less of a snooze fest. As Kontakt mentions there was nothing new to the story and I was miles ahead of the script.


Wheels
Posted By: Plainsman

Re: Gravity - 11/10/13 03:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Ssnake
Don't get me wrong - I'm with you. The film would have been better that way. But cinema has never just been about art. First and foremost it is a business whose products occasionally - and rather incidentally - become art under fortunate circumstances.
Maybe I'm just too forgiving here. I can look over those deficits and accept them as necessary compromises to get investors on board to finance the whole project. Gravity is substantially different from most contemporary pictures in many areas already. Diversity as such is seen rather as a detriment among film investors. We may regret this, but it's a reality.


One can intend cinema to be art. Francis Ford Coppola once produced a work of art and he said as much at the time of release. I thought the movie Apocalypse Now was a friggin' work of art. A friggin' masterpiece. That doesn't mean it was the greatest "movie" ever made. But it was a work of friggin' genius. Whereas the movie that captured the Best Picture Oscar that year, The Deer Hunter, was just a movie. In my opinion, it wasn't even that good a movie, but the cast, and it's anti-Vietnam War sentiments, made it impossible for the Hollywood crowd - the Oscar voters - to ignore. The Deer Hunter is a movie. Apocalypse Now is a work of art.
Posted By: Plainsman

Re: Gravity - 11/10/13 04:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Kontakt5
I saw it in 3D, IMax- it was boring in the way a chick can be good looking but boring. The reason why is that these characters were added to glue the special effects together, rather than a story about the characters, to me it was like every good looking CGI film yet not very arresting. The lead characters were good looking, the film was good looking, but it stopped there with me- of course, that's what they were going for. The astronauts who survived initially weren't going to be the others who might not be as attractive or something. The ones to survive are the ones who look like Hollywood A-list actors rather than what astronauts usually look and act like. Have you noticed how many people mentioned how hot Sandra Bullock is? That's no accident, that's deliberate. That's part of the pull that makes the film attractive.

Right off that bat I thought the chemistry between Clooney and Bullock was bogus- the filmmakers were trying to throw that in there really fast but the relied on stock formulas, even Bullock's character's name: Ryan Stone. What is it with the name Ryan in big marquee films, anyway?

Just throwing a layer of sentimental sap in there immediately with the dead child and Clooney's flirty, loveable frat dude, for me it was like the added romance in that awful film Pearl Harbor because a film centered around one event is hard to connect audiences with. These are story gimmicks just because as Ssnake alluded to, it's not necessarily the easiest thing in the world to write natural dialogue which connects audiences to characters, the easiest thing in the world to write in some tragedy to the backstory which is supposed to manipulate the audience into some feeling or identification with something deep going on without trying too hard- because a dead child, what could be more sentimental that? Cheap story point to get the audience. Bad storytelling. Lazy.

Now call me heartless, empty or shallow, but you have to work to get my attention. I've seen this all before, it's easy, and it's transparent to me. On the other hand, you get my praise, you've done something.


I don't care about the characters looks. I care about their situation and likability which for me has nothing to do with looks. I found the film engrossing because I put myself in Bullock's situation. Would I do as well? Would I survive? How well would I be able to think under the exact same circumstances?
Posted By: AWL_Spinner

Re: Gravity - 11/10/13 04:41 AM

I'm pretty hard to please sci-fi wise but I enjoyed it a great deal, it strayed enough from Hollywood norms to keep me interested. I don't think the romance/chemistry, for want of better words, as it really wasn't, was at all over-played and nor did I immediately see through Clooney's reappearance.

LOVED the fact that everything went South in the first five minutes and kept falling apart for the rest of the film with no flashbacks, pace-changes, pre-ambles, all the usual back-story gimmicks you see in sci-fi (plenty in the recent Elysium disappointment, for example). Just one continuous story in "real time".

LOVED the fact that largely due to the above it was only 1.5hrs, no padding.

A few lines of character development floating on a tether whilst George was trying to keep her focused and talking easily forgivable, to me.

Pulled in 13m last weekend in the US (week five!) with worldwide takings edging toward 440,000,000.

Best space movie I've seen for several years, easy.
Posted By: AWL_Spinner

Re: Gravity - 11/10/13 05:22 AM

Sandra on set during filming.

Posted By: semmern

Re: Gravity - 11/10/13 09:27 PM

Saw it today, and I really like it!

Did anyone catch Ed Harris as Houston? A nice nod to him having played Gene Krantz in Apollo 13, and John Glenn in TRS smile
Posted By: Kontakt5

Re: Gravity - 11/11/13 12:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Plainsman


I don't care about the characters looks. I care about their situation and likability which for me has nothing to do with looks. I found the film engrossing because I put myself in Bullock's situation. Would I do as well? Would I survive? How well would I be able to think under the exact same circumstances?


I couldn't connect with these scenes- something about it was either too goofy (Clooney) or too gooey (Bullock). I could not buy into these characters, not for a moment did ever think I was watching anything but a very slickly made but shallow film. Put the visuals and subject matter aside (I know the crowd at SimHQ of course will be very enthusiastic about space), this to me was like Titanic in space, but not as good as Titanic, story wise. If it took place in a cave where they were trapped, this would be more a lame 'chick film,' probably males would not be into it as much.

Clooney hitting on Bullock while she's emoting personal tragedy in space while they're supposedly a desperate situation for survival which they probably would not have survived, this is in my view is not a good story. It's as if NASA didn't vet these people and check their backgrounds, or they would have discovered some skeletons in the closet. Bullock with her issues, and Clooney, who would probably be accident and risk prone- this is after all the guy who still jokes on the way to his own death about trying to break the spacewalk record. Not a real character. This is just a bad script. To be sure a couple of years ago there was that strange pair of real life astronauts who had an affair, but I doubt this would have been something that came out during a spacewalk or something.

Something else that kind of seemed overlooked- why does the second space station even exist? They debris field rips apart the first one and then comes back around to wipe out the second one- the second one should have been destroyed the first time around with the first one. It appears to be in line to get hit during the second revolution, but why not the first?


I just watched All is Lost, another survival tale, and I found it much more personal and less bizarre. Rather than spend time having Redford act like a larger than life fraternity psychopath or have to tell you about dead children to get you to identify with him, you watch him struggle to survive. And it seems much more real, to me anyway.


Posted By: ArgonV

Re: Gravity - 11/11/13 06:18 PM

I know a lot of people that use humor as a self-defense mechanism - most perform highly dangerous jobs at that. In fact I've met quite a few astronauts in my time and I can say they all have a great sense of humor. If I were floating away to my death, I'd be cracking jokes all the way to my grave.
Posted By: Rick.50cal

Re: Gravity - 11/11/13 07:05 PM


Originally Posted By: Kontakt5

Clooney hitting on Bullock while she's emoting personal tragedy in space while they're supposedly a desperate situation for survival which they probably would not have survived, this is in my view is not a good story. It's as if NASA didn't vet these people and check their backgrounds, or they would have discovered some skeletons in the closet. Bullock with her issues, and Clooney, who would probably be accident and risk prone- this is after all the guy who still jokes on the way to his own death about trying to break the spacewalk record. Not a real character. This is just a bad script. To be sure a couple of years ago there was that strange pair of real life astronauts who had an affair, but I doubt this would have been something that came out during a spacewalk or something.


WTF are you talking about?!!?

He wasn't actually hitting on her...he was trying everything he could do, to distract her from panic due to the dire situation, so that she could be just distracted enough to calm to a level where her ox reserves might be enough. It's basically the same sort of principles a doctor uses as bedside manner for a patient who's in severe trauma and not certain to survive the night. Give them encouragement, distract them from just how severe their situation is, and do your best to calm them down. For their own survival.

As for vetting and issues...sorry, but guess what? EVERYONE has "issues". EVERYONE. Even you and I. NASA has it's own criteria for what it likes in astronaughts and what would cause them to reject an applicant...but "issues" won't be the issue, because everyone has 'em.

Accident prone?!? How on earth did you conclude that?!

Clooney isn't really joking about his impending death. He's a realist, he's an experienced professional who knew years, even decades before that a spacewalk that goes bad is a guarantee of death. Failing to arrest his inertia from the station, he knew before even arriving that would result in his death. He'd have come to terms with his mortality minutes BEFORE, hours before, even years or decades before he drifted past the station.

When I arrived in the warzone for the first time, for a short period i had a little bit of a minor panic attack. And then I focused on the notion that if I died there during my tour, it wasn't as big a deal as other events in my life...it would just be the end of it. I concluded that if I died, it was ok, and maybe I might just get lucky and live through that war. I got calm within minutes...and that served me for the entire tour. I came to grips with my own death long before I might actually get killed, and suddenly I could joke about it. Grim humor became actually amusing and funny. THAT is what Clooney's character was going through.

And much like soldiers in war, even when he knew his own life was within an hour of expiring, he focused on doing what little he could, to help save the life of his fellow comrade, Bullock, simply by pretending his own situation was ok with himself, that she couldn't grieve for him or it would cost her her life too, get her focused on her own survival, itself hanging by a thread. Or in this case a parachute strand! In a way, it was a little like the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies, although a bit different since his own fate was sealed already.

Him talking about breaking spacewalk records after drifting past to his death, was simply trying to get Bullock to get calm and focused, by forcing himself to be calm and talk about useless trivia, instead of crying that he wouldn't see his wife/kids (not sure he had any, I don't recall mention of his personal situation) again.


Originally Posted By: Kontakt5

Something else that kind of seemed overlooked- why does the second space station even exist? They debris field rips apart the first one and then comes back around to wipe out the second one- the second one should have been destroyed the first time around with the first one. It appears to be in line to get hit during the second revolution, but why not the first?


Well...actual orbital mechanics seems to be rather lacking in this movie, probably it's most unrealistic feature. The Hubble, shuttle, ISS and Chinese station all seem to be orbiting on the same plane just 20km appart...which is just rediculous. They'd all be a drastically different altitudes, and likely thousands of KM appart. Which, might offer a plausible explanation why the other station hadn't got hit yet. Except that wasn't what was shown in the movie!

I just chalked it all up to the notion that space is big, and debris and stations are tiny in comparison. In reality, such a debris field might take months or years of orbits to eventually hit another station. By contrast, the movie depicted something more resembling the Indonesian tsunami or something, wiping out nearly everything in it's path.
Posted By: Kontakt5

Re: Gravity - 11/11/13 10:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Rick.50cal



He wasn't actually hitting on her...he was trying everything he could do, to distract her from panic due to the dire situation, so that she could be just distracted enough to calm to a level where her ox reserves might be enough.


You missed the part he was hitting on her- consider yourself lucky. Let me ask you this: have you ever consoled a hot chick who told you that her child had died and whom you now find yourselves in a life or death situation with a compliment like telling her she's cute? I'll bet you haven't. There's a reason for that, it's off- a sociopath might hit on someone at a funeral, because they lack a certain social awareness that most other people understand.


Quote:
As for vetting and issues...sorry, but guess what? EVERYONE has "issues". EVERYONE. Even you and I. NASA has it's own criteria for what it likes in astronaughts and what would cause them to reject an applicant...but "issues" won't be the issue, because everyone has 'em.


There are issues and then there are issues- in my time in the military and in my careers after, I've held various clearances or have had certain assignments that required background checks. I couldn't tell you why I never failed anything, because as a kid when I did wild things that I wouldn't do now, but it created no trail of itself- this was back before everything you did was recorded and put up on the Internet or indexed in an electronic database somewhere. But then there's another difference, I never applied for a job that required me to be sealed up in a tube and put into space, either. You can't just quit, you can't just be recalled, you can't just be the kind of person who is an individual and doesn't play well with others. You're stuck up there with the slimmest margin for error. I don't know exactly everything that NASA would do to screen people who make it into the astronaut program, but there's usually a reason why people in the program are just generally very cerebral and clean cut- much more than I ever would be on both accounts. Less cowboys and more engineers and scientists. I knew a colonel who was supposed to be an astronaut- I forget his story, he was either supposed to be on the next mission after the Challenger, but they canceled his mission or he washed out, basically a boring guy otherwise. Air Force Academy grad, nothing on his record. Kind of eccentric and a story teller, a bit egotistical but that might be the reason why he didn't make it.


Quote:
Accident prone?!? How on earth did you conclude that?!


I don't think you are really reading my comments- you're kind of reacting with your trademark tirades and exaggerated use of punctuation!!??? WTF!!!???

Really, it gets old. When you punctuate every sentence the way you do, it loses any sense of the importance you are trying to portend.

You'll have to see below to get my meaning- the character is sort of a story telling cowboy, right? People like that are either embellishers or they are the real thing- which are sort of contrary to the personality type to what you'd want as an astronaut. Probably makes for a good fictional character though, but generally everything about space is risk management, people like these would probably be tended to weeded out. Or as I said the character is just full of sh_t and it's just sort of like a stereotypical goofball romantic comedy sketch- as I said before. If Clooney would have lived, she would have found out the stories were half truths and exaggerations, but hey, by that time she would have fallen in love like they all do. santa


Quote:
Clooney isn't really joking about his impending death. He's a realist, he's an experienced professional who knew years, even decades before that a spacewalk that goes bad is a guarantee of death. Failing to arrest his inertia from the station, he knew before even arriving that would result in his death. He'd have come to terms with his mortality minutes BEFORE, hours before, even years or decades before he drifted past the station.


You've failed to really pay attention to his death scene, I take it. One of his parting shots is how he's going to break the spacewalking record, that's a joke. It's also highly unlikely that someone would do that- that's even rare for a psychopath to do that.

Quote:
When I arrived in the warzone for the first time, for a short period i had a little bit of a minor panic attack. And then I focused on the notion that if I died there during my tour, it wasn't as big a deal as other events in my life...it would just be the end of it. I concluded that if I died, it was ok, and maybe I might just get lucky and live through that war. I got calm within minutes...and that served me for the entire tour. I came to grips with my own death long before I might actually get killed, and suddenly I could joke about it. Grim humor became actually amusing and funny. THAT is what Clooney's character was going through.


This is still different, and not what Clooney is going through. Let me repeat again since you've missed it- Clooney is dying, it's not a matter of if, he's not speculating, he's drifting off into space, he made the decision to die. As he's dying there's not much difference to the way he lives, either- his character is fairly typical of some romantic kind of trope. Humor is used to take the edge off things in dangerous situations, but this is used to move the audience to sentiment. It doesn't get much gooier than this. It's no coincidence that they used male and female leads, and at that A listers typically considered some of the most beautiful people in the business. Think of this story if Clooney looked like a typical bald guy for his age, and Bullock didn't have model looks or was another male astronaut- which would more likely to be the case. That certainly would change the dynamics of the story quite a bit without that male-female tension that so many films force into a story. It would be a different story, one that might have to rely on something else- perhaps more technical or scientific fidelity.


Quote:
Well...actual orbital mechanics seems to be rather lacking in this movie, probably it's most unrealistic feature. The Hubble, shuttle, ISS and Chinese station all seem to be orbiting on the same plane just 20km appart...which is just rediculous. They'd all be a drastically different altitudes, and likely thousands of KM appart. Which, might offer a plausible explanation why the other station hadn't got hit yet. Except that wasn't what was shown in the movie!

I just chalked it all up to the notion that space is big, and debris and stations are tiny in comparison. In reality, such a debris field might take months or years of orbits to eventually hit another station. By contrast, the movie depicted something more resembling the Indonesian tsunami or something, wiping out nearly everything in it's path.


In the end, you have to accept certain premises, granted- you wind up having to accept the premise that they used a lot of theatre to set up the situation that they were in, but that includes the character dialogue and interactions. And that's what I saw this film as- a visual treat, I'm not arguing against that. Not much more than that, in my opinion. This wasn't a 'realistic' type of drama, this is popcorn cinema, I don't really know what else to compare it to, I'd have to think about it. That's not to say those movies can't be successful, they obviously can- but I am explaining why I found this boring. It's trying to make you care about these cardboard people, I just couldn't get into their story.
Posted By: Kontakt5

Re: Gravity - 11/12/13 05:27 AM

Originally Posted By: ArgonV
I know a lot of people that use humor as a self-defense mechanism - most perform highly dangerous jobs at that. In fact I've met quite a few astronauts in my time and I can say they all have a great sense of humor. If I were floating away to my death, I'd be cracking jokes all the way to my grave.


It's not a normal reaction to laugh about your own immediate death, no matter how much the movies try to convince audiences how common and how easy that as to do. In some situations, probably war, men may become so traumatized or so desensitized they lose hope (pretty much lost themselves and are emotional wrecks), and in those situations some might joke very grimly or nightmarishly about their fates, but that's not the same thing as joking while you're dying at the same time. It's still not normal for someone on the way to their own untimely deaths to joke and be so calm about it. Even when they know ahead of time that it is certain they are going to be executed- many of the hardest, most desensitize condemned prisoners get colder feet than you can imagine and have to be carried to the execution chamber. Fear is the normal reaction. Dying medical patients may reach an acceptance phase, but that's after they've had time to go through denial and fear first. Pilots crashing aren't going to be telling jokes on the way down. It's not a choice to do that. That's something that they do in the movies.

Posted By: AWL_Spinner

Re: Gravity - 11/13/13 12:49 AM

Quote:
Even when they know ahead of time that it is certain they are going to be executed- many of the hardest, most desensitize condemned prisoners get colder feet than you can imagine and have to be carried to the execution chamber


On a tangent, the execution episode in the most recent season of The Killing was the most compelling hour of TV drama I've seen in a long, long time. Just incredible performances.

On a tangent to that tangent, I can't believe Joel Kinnaman is the new Robocop. Actually, I'll just leave it as I can't believe they're remaking Robocop.
Posted By: Kontakt5

Re: Gravity - 11/13/13 12:58 AM

Yeah, I doubt there will be anything about that one to go see. Probably better if a local theatre screens the original, even though I must have seen it a dozen times already.
Posted By: Snap

Re: Gravity - 11/13/13 05:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Kontakt5
In some situations, probably war, men may become so traumatized or so desensitized they lose hope (pretty much lost themselves and are emotional wrecks), and in those situations some might joke very grimly or nightmarishly about their fates, but that's not the same thing as joking while you're dying at the same time. That's something that they do in the movies.



Bill Murray did it really well in Zombieland, I have to say. We got to laugh with him as he perished and be faux sad at the same time. Good stuff.
Posted By: Kontakt5

Re: Gravity - 11/13/13 06:06 AM

That movie was over the top and meant for laughs.

Odd thing about Clooney in Gravity is that you don't really get his story- you sort of get into Bullock's head about her daughter, but nothing about where Clooney comes from- his family or anything like that, he seems like a bachelor.

His fatal scene he doesn't invoke any emotion I could believe- not even a whimper about his own family and his fate (which would have totally changed the emotional impact of that scene), just a charmer right going out to the end. His part was written for the females in the audience and their tendency to be manipulated by these sorts of smooth, charming, psychopathic type characters. No matter what's going on he's pretty much immune to stress or fear, he flirts with Sandra Bullock during this ordeal in space and after she revealed her issues, he's not deep at all, he is emotionally shallow, he's superficially charming, he has psychopathic characteristics, although I'm sure the screen writers are really not that deep to realize that- they've just designed a light hearted character for a supposedly serious situation, it's so unhuman and contrived however, it's bizarre. If it weren't for the awesome visuals and they weren't in space or they were trapped on a boat or in Alaska wilderness, this film would have been a real turkey. I have to go watch Alien just to wash this stuff out of my system, in Gravity I was lured into watching a third rate romantic comedy I didn't want to see.

Posted By: Vertigo1

Re: Gravity - 11/18/13 06:30 PM

I caught the movie last night and enjoyed it quite a bit. Sandra Bullock did a good job (considering I was complaining about her in the trailer). 3D works well with this film.
Posted By: AWL_Spinner

Re: Gravity - 11/19/13 02:31 AM

Yeah wouldn't mind seeing it again but movies are exorbitantly expensive these days. Shame as I'm sure it'll be a lot less impactful on a home screen with no 3D.
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 11/19/13 04:11 AM

Originally Posted By: AWL_Spinner
Yeah wouldn't mind seeing it again but movies are exorbitantly expensive these days. Shame as I'm sure it'll be a lot less impactful on a home screen with no 3D.

Out of curiosity, how much is a movie ticket in Vancouver for an evening showing? It's $11.00 in Miami. That's the non 3D price of course.
Posted By: ArgonV

Re: Gravity - 11/19/13 08:03 PM

$5.50 here in College Station - and no that's not matinee prices!
Posted By: AWL_Spinner

Re: Gravity - 11/20/13 05:32 AM

5.50, wow.

$19 for IMAX at the top end down to $12.50 for non 3D standard around these parts. I admit I've got used to being spoiled with the nice seats and huge screen at the IMAX though!

Posted By: ArgonV

Re: Gravity - 11/20/13 08:08 PM

With low prices comes low wages though...
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Gravity - 11/20/13 08:44 PM

Originally Posted By: ArgonV
With low prices comes low wages though...


True but it was my experience when I lived in Texas that the average wages were much more in line with the average cost of living compared to other places I've lived. That's why you have so many people moving to Texas from other States.

For example, in South Florida the cost of living is way too high for what the average wages are. I never encountered that problem when I lived in Texas.
Posted By: ArgonV

Re: Gravity - 11/21/13 03:00 PM

Good point!

College Station is notorious for inflated housing prices and low wages though...
Posted By: wheelsup_cavu

Re: Gravity - 12/26/13 02:12 AM

Originally Posted By: wheelsup_cavu
Seeing it in 3D made it no less of a snooze fest. As Kontakt mentions there was nothing new to the story and I was miles ahead of the script.


Wheels

Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed that day...


Wheels
© 2024 SimHQ Forums