GRAVITY - Apparently One Of The Best Films Ever Made!
Discussion
Just watched this on blu-ray. Better than Prometheus. 
Stunning visuals and cinematography. Properly wow. I though the sound and minimalist music worked well too. The holes/inaccuracies in the physics I can forgive.
However my overwhelming feeling echoed this:
Bit more work on the characters and preferably with a pair of less Hollywood actors and it could have been great.I enjoyed Avatar in the cinema for the 3D effect and felt it a great cinematic experience. Would I bother watching Avatar again at home? Probably not.
I feel that by not watching on the big screen I missed the 'cinematic experience' which may have elevated the film above the 7.5/10 I'd otherwise give. Shame.
Just to reiterate - better than Prometheus.
Stunning visuals and cinematography. Properly wow. I though the sound and minimalist music worked well too. The holes/inaccuracies in the physics I can forgive.
However my overwhelming feeling echoed this:
blindswelledrat said:
renmure said:
I watched it this evening. Visually it was great but because there was no real character development I wasn't really bothered whether anyone survived or not. Still really enjoyed it.
Exactly the same for me. I could have been brilliant but for the fact that George Clooney played George Clooney and the same for Bullock.Bit more work on the characters and preferably with a pair of less Hollywood actors and it could have been great.
I feel that by not watching on the big screen I missed the 'cinematic experience' which may have elevated the film above the 7.5/10 I'd otherwise give. Shame.
Just to reiterate - better than Prometheus.
g3org3y said:
I enjoyed Avatar in the cinema for the 3D effect and felt it a great cinematic experience. Would I bother watching Avatar again at home? Probably not.
I feel that by not watching on the big screen I missed the 'cinematic experience' which may have elevated the film above the 7.5/10 I'd otherwise give. Shame.
Sadly true. I saw Avatar twice at the cinema; the first time was awesome and the second time was quite disappointing as the initial "wow" factor wasn't there. I feel that by not watching on the big screen I missed the 'cinematic experience' which may have elevated the film above the 7.5/10 I'd otherwise give. Shame.
When I saw it on Blu-ray (it came with my Blu-ray player) and it was extremely disappointing.
So, given I missed Gravity at the cinema, I can see what you're saying with this and am put off from getting it on Blu-ray.
Edited by JonRB on Monday 19th May 13:29
JonRB said:
Sadly true. I saw Avatar twice at the cinema; the first time was awesome and the second time was quite disappointing as the initial "wow" factor wasn't there.
When I saw it on Blu-ray (it came with my Blu-ray player) and it was extremely disappointing.
So, given I missed Gravity at the cinema, I can see where you are going with this and am put off from getting it on Blu-ray.
It's still worth watching, in my opinion. The story is weakish and a bit hackneyed, but even on a TV the quality of the special effects still stands out. I really appreciated the rendition of the various spacecraft. The dynamics of moving about io space were mostly correct - with the odd dip into Hollywoodisation.When I saw it on Blu-ray (it came with my Blu-ray player) and it was extremely disappointing.
So, given I missed Gravity at the cinema, I can see where you are going with this and am put off from getting it on Blu-ray.
Catatafish said:
Bullock's character is a medical engineer fixing the... Hubble telescope lmao
I guess NASA let anyone have a go on that old bucket these days;)
In actual fact - they do.I guess NASA let anyone have a go on that old bucket these days;)
Scientists and engineers who travel into orbit or stay on the ISS have to try their hands at all sorts of disciplines outside of their actual qualifications.
Read this book for an insight into what is required of a modern astronaut -
Of the 12 astronauts who performed geological field activities on the moon, only one was a qualified geologist.
Catatafish said:
Bullock's character is a medical engineer fixing the... Hubble telescope lmao
I guess NASA let anyone have a go on that old bucket these days;)
Not too much of a stretch from fixing medical instruments to fixing the Hubble. It's not as if she's doing optical alignments or anything - Field Replacable Units and all that (I assume - haven't actally seen the film) I guess NASA let anyone have a go on that old bucket these days;)
Astronauts have to be multi-disciplined. Most of them will have a university degree (or equivalent) at least - many have doctorates (or equivalent). So they tend to be fairly smart people.
However, when on orbit, they often have to work experiments and equipment that cover research fields outside of their own personal; qualifications. This is simply because the number of astronauts available to cover all the work required is very limited and they have to be able to be able to multi-task.
Neither is this is not a simple ad-hoc situation (on the whole).
On average, an astronaut will start training for a specific mission about two years before launch date - so even if you have a medically qualified person on board the ISS or the Shuttle, they will have been tutored extensively on any equipment they will need to install, operate or fix - even if the equipment is not medicine or biological in nature.
So, having Bullock work on the Hubble is not altogether outlandish at all.
However, when on orbit, they often have to work experiments and equipment that cover research fields outside of their own personal; qualifications. This is simply because the number of astronauts available to cover all the work required is very limited and they have to be able to be able to multi-task.
Neither is this is not a simple ad-hoc situation (on the whole).
On average, an astronaut will start training for a specific mission about two years before launch date - so even if you have a medically qualified person on board the ISS or the Shuttle, they will have been tutored extensively on any equipment they will need to install, operate or fix - even if the equipment is not medicine or biological in nature.
So, having Bullock work on the Hubble is not altogether outlandish at all.
Eric Mc said:
However, when on orbit, they often have to work experiments and equipment that cover research fields outside of their own personal; qualifications. This is simply because the number of astronauts available to cover all the work required is very limited and they have to be able to be able to multi-task.
.
The same is true for working in Antarctica (at least for Australians anyhow), a school colleague wanted desperately to work there as an electrical engineer but he needed additional training as diesel engineer in order to qualify (which he duly did). At that time it was a requirement to have two trades minimum..
Eric Mc said:
In actual fact - they do.
Scientists and engineers who travel into orbit or stay on the ISS have to try their hands at all sorts of disciplines outside of their actual qualifications.
Read this book for an insight into what is required of a modern astronaut -
Of the 12 astronauts who performed geological field activities on the moon, only one was a qualified geologist.
Astronauts multi-skilled? You don't say...Scientists and engineers who travel into orbit or stay on the ISS have to try their hands at all sorts of disciplines outside of their actual qualifications.
Read this book for an insight into what is required of a modern astronaut -
Of the 12 astronauts who performed geological field activities on the moon, only one was a qualified geologist.
The expert engineer tasked with repairing the Hubble would have first aid training but would not be a medical engineer. I think the writers got a bit confused, like when someone told them about space debris and orbital mechanics.
Many engineering based astronauts have to perform medical experiments. In fact, Hadfield says that the astronauts on the ISS spend around 1/3 of their time involved in work related to biomedical science.
"Gravity" is not meant to be a documentary. Like all fiction, there will be an element of artistic licence.
Space films are notorious for straying from scientific accuracy - some more than others. On aa scale of "how close to the truth" this film gets, I'd give it a 7 out of 10 - with "Star Wars" being a 1 out of 10 and "2001" a 9 out of 10.
"Gravity" is not meant to be a documentary. Like all fiction, there will be an element of artistic licence.
Space films are notorious for straying from scientific accuracy - some more than others. On aa scale of "how close to the truth" this film gets, I'd give it a 7 out of 10 - with "Star Wars" being a 1 out of 10 and "2001" a 9 out of 10.
Lost soul said:
I thought it was total rubbish
Glad I am not the only one. Watched it on Sky BO the other night. Was thoroughly underwhelmed.The visuals were very good but the story and the characters were awful. Even GC who I usually like was terrible. Want the £5.50 I paid to rent it back.
944fan said:
Lost soul said:
I thought it was total rubbish
Glad I am not the only one. Watched it on Sky BO the other night. Was thoroughly underwhelmed.The visuals were very good but the story and the characters were awful. Even GC who I usually like was terrible. Want the £5.50 I paid to rent it back.
Still wouldn't have made up for the awful acting and plot though.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff