Gravity, t3h movie! Imax 3d.

[kandrathe]

It does help immensely however, if you want to discuss the film more in depth, to see it. That probably applies to any film.

Just going to the movie and seeing it certainly obviates the need for critics to advise us on what is good, or what is crap. But, I was talking to my in-laws, and wife, who did go to see it who are not astrophysicists, who mentioned the issues I mentioned. Not Google. I may go to see it, but I'm not hurrying.

[DeeBye]

Just going to the movie and seeing it certainly obviates the need for critics to advise us on what is good, or what is crap. But, I was talking to my in-laws, and wife, who did go to see it who are not astrophysicists, who mentioned the issues I mentioned. Not Google. I may go to see it, but I'm not hurrying.

You really hate NASA, don't you? Gravity currently has a 97% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 96% on Metacrtitic. Sometimes a good movie is just a good movie. You don't need to read anything more into it.

[kandrathe]

You really hate NASA, don't you? Gravity currently has a 97% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 96% on Metacrtitic. Sometimes a good movie is just a good movie. You don't need to read anything more into it.

I don't really have any passion for or against NASA. I believe their purpose and perseverance have been eroded, but I would love to see them create a means to colonize Mars (for example), and create a means to regularly visit there. It would delight me even more were their long term strategy to be funded on their research patents, or exploitation of space. They should be able, with their virtual monopoly on US space program, to generate far more ROI. As it sits, they get too little support, and don't get enough done.

I'm just the type* of person who, when I see a movie (any movie) or read a book, MUST go back, do research, and scrutinize it for accuracy. In that regard then, movies that are obviously fictional frivolous romps require little work on my part (e.g. LOTR - except for comparing to the book version). Movies that attempt to be accurate require work for me to separate the truths from the untruths. Otherwise, I am concerned (worried) that my knowledge of that actual topic will be prejudiced by fictional theatrical bravado (e.g. The Help, Argo, The Butler, or most anything with Kevin Costner in it...). I believe that the more realistic the movie attempts to be may aid it in deceiving people about other more important truths. For example, this one. It may suggest to a vast number of people that space is far more dangerous than it really is, and that the people that work to get people there take more irresponsible, and more unreasoned risks than they really do. It may create unrealistic fears about sending more people into space, something I would venture all of us "sci-fi" type people are wishing were more possible.

But, I suspect the space technology is not what gets this movie it's critical acclaim. That has probably more to do with the cinematography, direction, acting, and story. When I go see it, it would be only for those elements -- and I'd try to unpack the other "cool" but wrong stuff as movie wrappings. Of higher priority for my household would be, "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters" , or "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2" -- which has less critical acclaim, but would be appreciated 1000% more by my sons.

Anyway, welcome to the nightmare that is my over-analytical mind.

* And, yes, I recognize that it is me who is not like the other 99.9% of people. And, yes, there is a clinical DSM IV diagnosis for the minority of people like me.

[Kevin]

I think Del Toro was spot on with his advice. No sound in the exterior shots would've been 100% realistic. Filming paint drying and grass growing in real time, is also 100% realistic.

But I doubt people outside of an art video installation crowd would flock to go see it. Though if it's done by an interesting studio\director, I'd be interested. Then again I subscribe to a Realism=\=Believability in a story theory. And I'd also pay money to hear James Earl Jones perform a live reading of a phone book. Not for the phone book, but for James Earl Jones. (I can't believe I have to spell that out, but some people may need help on that front.)

This one I quite like as well:

I haven't seen it yet, but I want to.

So I'm quite curious about the silence. Whedon used it pretty well in Firefly. I do tend to share many of your opinions on art vs reality. So I'm looking forward to seeing how this particular little bit works out. Since I've seen this particular realism done correctly and very effectively. I'm looking forward to forming an informed opinion.

I'm a big space and science buff so I did some research ahead of time, mostly reading reviews others with even more knowledge of the things I like, such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, Buzz Aldrin, Mike Massimino, Leroy Chiao, Chris Hadfield, etc. Depending on the spin of the article you get various critiques. The spin aspect seems especially for what Chiao says, some articles make him sound like he agrees with most of the science some like he agrees with none of it. So I've gotten some spoilers and I know some of the issues going in. I don't think they are going to bother me too much. Some of them I can quite easily explain away as "alternate reality". Others might bug me some based on what I read but I don't think so based on the reviews, I've got a feeling artistic license will cover it.

I know Massimino who spent more time than anyone with the Hubble was impressed with the details on it. They even had an exact replica of a one off tool that he helped design in the film. So some of the details really are spot on, which leads me to believe that the things that aren't correct, aren't correct for a reason.

So I'm very much looking forward to it. Won't be able to see IMax, but will be able to see it in 3D.

I've also heard that the astronauts were impressed by the work Bullock did to prepare for the role. That doesn't surprise me because I think she is a good actress and it's been clear that with serious roles in the past that she did her homework.

[Hammerskjold]

I know Massimino who spent more time than anyone with the Hubble was impressed with the details on it. They even had an exact replica of a one off tool that he helped design in the film. So some of the details really are spot on, which leads me to believe that the things that aren't correct, aren't correct for a reason.

Yep I also read a few comments of astronauts jokingly saying 'so that's where my tools went.'.

Potential spoiler alert:







The event that triggers the story and action in the film, is not impossible from what I know. (Though I don't, and never claimed I'm a space cowboy.) But it would probably be a perfect storm situation if that were to happen in real life.

Most reviews I read involving real life NASA\rocket surgeons, most of them seem to possess the ability to enjoy the film and overlook some inaccuracies of a film, that never once claimed it was a 100% science doc.

At least according to this article, Cuaron originally wanted to do Gravity as a small film. So I really doubt the claim of 'this movie strived for 100% realism, invested a lot, because that's the goal from the get go,'. Maybe it's some people's quirky reading comprehension.

Again, spoiler alert.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment...-1.1467699

From the link:

"I have to say it was a big act of miscalculation, naivete and stupidity," jokes Cuarón, who originally envisioned the massive adventure that is "Gravity" as a "small" film.

So I'm very much looking forward to it. Won't be able to see IMax, but will be able to see it in 3D.

There hasn't been a 3D movie that convinced me that 3D in theatres or TV is worth the extra bucks. As a tech\industrial\art demo, sure. But as a narrative with the technical whizbang? None. Until 'Gravity' did, for me at least. I think perhaps one secret was making sure it still has elements that made it work on traditional 2D screens. Like a good story.

I'm not a fan of Clooney's one character schtick, and I don't really have any strong feelings with Bullock's work. Speed and Demolition man was fun, but I don't really go out of my way to watch much of their works.

None of that entered my mind when I was watching this film. Clooney was at least tolerable, and Bullock floored me.

Then again I was busy watching the film, and the few times I was not focusing on the film overall I was thinking 'holy sh....I know how he did that shot, but -how- did he do that shot?!'.

If I wanted to jot down every single technical mistake I could find with a non-doc movie, I probably wouldn't enjoy my film viewing experience. (Unless I'm doing a MST3000 theme night with friends.) Then again Marlon Brando's Jor' El wearing a Rolex didn't make me hate Superman the Motion Picture.

[DeeBye]

I'm just the type* of person who, when I see a movie (any movie) or read a book, MUST go back, do research, and scrutinize it for accuracy. In that regard then, movies that are obviously fictional frivolous romps require little work on my part (e.g. LOTR - except for comparing to the book version). Movies that attempt to be accurate require work for me to separate the truths from the untruths. Otherwise, I am concerned (worried) that my knowledge of that actual topic will be prejudiced by fictional theatrical bravado (e.g. The Help, Argo, The Butler, or most anything with Kevin Costner in it...). I believe that the more realistic the movie attempts to be may aid it in deceiving people about other more important truths. For example, this one. It may suggest to a vast number of people that space is far more dangerous than it really is, and that the people that work to get people there take more irresponsible, and more unreasoned risks than they really do. It may create unrealistic fears about sending more people into space, something I would venture all of us "sci-fi" type people are wishing were more possible.

I can easily separate realism from movie magic. All I ask with a film like this is that they at least try to explain why something outlandish might technically be possible. Arthur C. Clarke used to provide little footnotes in his novels about how some of his sci-fi could be possible. I liked that. It doesn't need to be 100% feasible - just throw me a bone and I'll separate from reality and go with it for the sake of movie enjoyment. Heck, I even enjoyed The Core.

The astronaut Mark Kelly was interviewed on TV about what he thought of Gravity, and he said he enjoyed it. He said the visual portrayals were pretty amazing and very realistic. He also said that if it was 100% accurate it would have been a terrible movie, because most of the stuff that happens in orbit is incredibly boring.

The most recent film I scrutinized for accuracy was Secretariat. It was a movie I watched by accident, mostly because it was in the blu-ray player and I was bored. I really liked it though. I had, of course, heard of Secretariat, but I really couldn't believe that this magical horse accomplished what he did as portrayed in the movie, so I googled it. It turns out that the movie was pretty dang accurate.

[kandrathe]

He also said that if it was 100% accurate it would have been a terrible movie, because most of the stuff that happens in orbit is incredibly boring.

I think if you or I were launched into space on a rocket (or even took a ride on a roller coaster), we'd appreciate predictability and no surprises.

[Hammerskjold]

He also said that if it was 100% accurate it would have been a terrible movie, because most of the stuff that happens in orbit is incredibly boring.

I think if you or I were launched into space on a rocket (or even took a ride on a roller coaster), we'd appreciate predictability and no surprises.

....That's right, for real life situations that is. Except Deebye's quoted remark was talking about a fictional movie. The real life situation is so obvious that one wonders who needs to spell that outright.

Anyhow. 'Gravity', at least the one that I went to see was not a documentary that followed 2 actual astronauts\theme park explorers who went into actual space and or an actual roller coaster ride.

If it was, I'd want it directed, or at least narrated by Werner Herzog. And instead of a straight up documentary that only over analytical special snowflakes contrarians can understand and digest. I'd make it a space buddy comedy caper style. But also a serious space noir like Blade Runner. Featuring a singing martian. It sounds crap blurb wise, but I trust in t3h Herzog.

That guy's narration can turn a Where's Waldo into an existential search for meaning. Or a drifting plastic bag into a sad and soulful journey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDBtCb61Sd4

[DeeBye]

I think if you or I were launched into space on a rocket (or even took a ride on a roller coaster), we'd appreciate predictability and no surprises.

And that's why Hollywood will never make a movie featuring the two of us visiting a theme park.

[DeeBye]

Just as an aside, what did you people think of Pacific Rim? I'd usually make a new thread about it, but since this thread is about sci-fi movies I'll ask it here. Feel free to make a new thread about Pacific Rim.

[vor_lord]

Saw it this weekend with my brothers. I honestly can't understand the fuss about realism--it was more believable (in multiple ways) than the vast majority of film. The first twenty minutes had me in near pure gut-squeezing animal terror.

Use of silence -- extremely effective at the beginning, but I think a few more places of total silence would also have worked later -- but they added music to it.

Worth it -- 3D actually cool, still have no idea how they shot a lot of it.

[kandrathe]

And that's why Hollywood will never make a movie featuring the two of us visiting a theme park.

From what I know of you, and what I know of me... That might actually be a good movie...

...if it were written by the Coen brothers.

[DeeBye]

From what I know of you, and what I know of me... That might actually be a good movie...

...if it were written by the Coen brothers.

Or Kevin Smith!

[Kevin]

I finally got a chance to see it today.

The event that triggers the story and action in the film, is not impossible from what I know. (Though I don't, and never claimed I'm a space cowboy.) But it would probably be a perfect storm situation if that were to happen in real life.

Most reviews I read involving real life NASA\rocket surgeons, most of them seem to possess the ability to enjoy the film and overlook some inaccuracies of a film, that never once claimed it was a 100% science doc.

I'm not an astonaut, but I've spoken in person to several, and it's a subject I have a passion for, so I'm more than just a passing knowledge.

It is possible in theory, but the orbits of where the actual vechicles and sattelites mentioned are no where near each other and cascading issues from one orbital plane to another while also possible would take years in most cases. However this movie is an alternate universe where the MMU actually worked and was used (what Clooney was flying around in) for more than just a few test walks so maybe they put things in non opitmal orbits as well. Mostly my issue is the comms and GPS going down as those are so much higher up than the stations would be. As is Hubble but I'm fine if they brought it to a lower orbit for servicing, unlike how it was done in reality. It's all possible, so easy for me to suspend belief.

Oddly I was most bother by the fact that no ones hair was free floating, but that is a filming issue and replicating how that really works would be very very hard. But since so much else was so well done it stood out to me a bit.

There hasn't been a 3D movie that convinced me that 3D in theatres or TV is worth the extra bucks. As a tech\industrial\art demo, sure. But as a narrative with the technical whizbang? None. Until 'Gravity' did, for me at least. I think perhaps one secret was making sure it still has elements that made it work on traditional 2D screens. Like a good story.

Yeah 3D did add some to Star Trek Into Darkness but it wasn't needed. This movie was clearly enhanced by 3D (as well as positional audio). There are other movies where I think 3D versions will add some to it, the Marvel universe movies for example. But not seeing Gravity in 3D on a big screen is doing yourself a disservice.

I'm not a fan of Clooney's one character schtick, and I don't really have any strong feelings with Bullock's work. Speed and Demolition man was fun, but I don't really go out of my way to watch much of their works.

None of that entered my mind when I was watching this film. Clooney was at least tolerable, and Bullock floored me.

I liked Clooney in the Ocean's movies, but generally I agree. He was fine in this, in part because he played the role a it like Massimino really is. The two Bullock movies you mentioned are probably her worst. What she did in Gravity might have been some of her best but that is closer to her normal. Of course she did do several months of astronaut training too.

If I wanted to jot down every single technical mistake I could find with a non-doc movie, I probably wouldn't enjoy my film viewing experience. (Unless I'm doing a MST3000 theme night with friends.) Then again Marlon Brando's Jor' El wearing a Rolex didn't make me hate Superman the Motion Picture.

I noticed quite a few flaws but they didn't matter. It was a good movie and I had no issues with the artistic license used with most of what was not correct.

[Hammerskjold]

I'm not an astonaut, but I've spoken in person to several, and it's a subject I have a passion for, so I'm more than just a passing knowledge.

I envy you sir, while I have read some articles\interviews, and watched many of Chris Hatfield's youtube vids from space. I have never had the pleasure of talking to one in the real. All of them seem to be fascinating characters.

As is Hubble but I'm fine if they brought it to a lower orbit for servicing, unlike how it was done in reality. It's all possible, so easy for me to suspend belief.

What's your take on the micrometeorites and space debris\junk danger?
From what I've read it might be amped up in the movie, but real life version it's quite real albeit might not be as dramatic as the hollywood version. But still very real and possible. Though I'm very interested in your informed opinion on this.

Oddly I was most bother by the fact that no ones hair was free floating, but that is a filming issue and replicating how that really works would be very very hard. But since so much else was so well done it stood out to me a bit.

Excellent catch, though maybe that's why the 2 main chars sported a relatively short haircuts. (IIRC Clooney's was a crewcut of some sort. Though my memory might not be correct on that one.)

I will say though there's a bit of a rule with CGI effects, it's getting better with each generation but IMO it still holds mostly true. With mechanical things, metallic\mirrored surfaces, CGI can handle it with relative ease. The really hard stuff is the organic. Flesh, fat, muscle, skin and skin tones, fur, and hair is considered a pretty difficult job to pull off convincingly with CGI.

Simulating\doing convincing CGI animation FX juggling on free floating hair in micro gravity might have been too much, considering the payoff vs just telling the actors to cut their hair short.

I liked Clooney in the Ocean's movies, but generally I agree. He was fine in this, in part because he played the role a it like Massimino really is. The two Bullock movies you mentioned are probably her worst. What she did in Gravity might have been some of her best but that is closer to her normal. Of course she did do several months of astronaut training too.

I liked Clooney in 'Brother Where Art Thou'. That role was either tailor made for him or he brought something extra. Either way I enjoyed it. Both 'Brother..' and in this film. Bullock's training definitely paid off IMO.

[LennyLen]

I watched Gravity on Sunday night. It was a very well made movie, and I agree with the comments made so far about the use of sound and 3D in its production.

Storywise however, I found the movie to be quite disappointing. The plot was bland and the characters were as well. Bullock's performance was good enough, but the character she portrayed just had nothing going for her. Clooney's even less so.

I read in an article that Cuaron had written a script where the ISS and hubble were in the correct orbits but discarded it as the extra work that would have to be done would have cluttered the story. I think it's a shame as that sounded like more of a story that I would like to see.

[Frag]

Watched it last night, feel it was the best movie I've put my butt in a seat at the movie theatre for, not because it was the best movie I've ever seen (far from), but the actual experience of seeing it on a 70' screen in 3D made it so very powerful and I can't imagine seeing it another way, specifically that opening 15 minutes or so. Utterly glorious camera work.

As for the 'shrapnel' issue, the best guess that my weak math skills come up with is that it would have a deteriorating orbit and wouldn't hit the same orbit in the same volume, even with the perfect storm scenario they cooked up. I'm certain someone with better calc skills could confirm or deny that much more substantially than my napkin math.

On the story level, I agree with you about the ISS and Hubble orbits, but it didn't feel like that change detracted from the story nearly as much as seeing the good Dr. in form fitting short & shirt.

[Lissa]

Sort of a necro since this has been out for a while. Saw it today, it's a good movie, but my background in nuclear engineering caused me to find a number of things with the physics that broke levels of realism (for someone not heavily vested in physics it probably wouldn't be an issue). I'm not going to go into everything (as number of things have been broached already), but the one that kind of stuck out at me was the tears and blood floating away from Dr. Stone. The problem is, in space, liquids will stick to surfaces due to surface tension, so the tears and water wouldn't just float away (the tear did lead to a neat little effect, but that's all really). The other being the self correcting Chinese Soyuz (even we don't have capsules that will self correct that well from a tumbling scenario), Dr. Stone should have died from burn up on re-entry due to the tumbling (the heat shield is only on one side so the rest of the vehicle would have been destroyed due to the high temperatures from atmospheric friction on re-entry with it tumbling like it was).

[Hammerskjold]

Sort of a necro since this has been out for a while. Saw it today,

Considering you saw the movie, and have an informed opinion that's on topic. It's a worthwhile post IMO, necroposting or not.

it's a good movie, but my background in nuclear engineering caused me to find a number of things with the physics that broke levels of realism (for someone not heavily vested in physics it probably wouldn't be an issue).

Fair enough. Though this is still first and foremost, a hollywood film. In case anyone is under the bizarre and frankly, wrong impression that this is somehow a Nat-Geo doc in space. (Not you, just saying some people might need that reminder.)

As much as I also like to see a good, 'hard sci-fi' movie because there simply isn't a lot of them around. Monies, and return on investment on these things are probably a bigger factor then getting every tech details right. Show-biz is still business.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4739-scott-pilgrim/

^
|
|

Above link is about the Scott Pilgrim movie, but the observation IMO still holds for something like this as well.

Basically I'm not going to count it as a negative that Cuaron decided to make a good movie that's also a popcorn fare, especially when he never set out to film a 100% realistic space documentary.

Putting monies on a movie that will 100% satisfy a few scientists and actual astronauts, vs satisfying a whole lot more people who aren't but are still paying for tickets? Unless those scientists buy multiple tickets for the entire run, buy multiple DVD copies, gets their families and friends to do the same. You know where I'm going with this right?

[kandrathe]

Basically I'm not going to count it as a negative that Cuaron decided to make a good movie that's also a popcorn fare, especially when he never set out to film a 100% realistic space documentary.

Putting monies on a movie that will 100% satisfy a few scientists and actual astronauts, vs satisfying a whole lot more people who aren't but are still paying for tickets? Unless those scientists buy multiple tickets for the entire run, buy multiple DVD copies, gets their families and friends to do the same. You know where I'm going with this right?

Then art criticism can be replaced by box office gross? It sounds like you are saying that quality, and artistry is irrelevant to popularity, and profits. For example, a movie like "House of Flying Daggers", only grossed 11 million in the US -- although I think the cinematography alone was worth the price of the ticket and now in the aftermarket it scores high on the rotten tomato scale. As an artist, there is a seductive allure to attempt something that people would enjoy rather than be true to what you think is artistic. Or maybe there are two categories -- Arts as opposed to entertainments. I have a hard time reconciling the groupings at times. The entertainment category includes; WWE, Monster Trucks, Miley Cyrus, Bieber Fever, and pornography. I think the danger for an artist is that once you "sell out" to dabble in entertainments, then does it diminish your standing as an artist. I'm sure there are many directors and actors who would like to undo some of their performance legacy, as it's locked now in film forever. And... I'm not saying that Gravity lacks artistry. Just that I separate popularity from quality.

Hollywood would have us paint more...


and less...