GRAVITY - Apparently One Of The Best Films Ever Made!

[im]

Marks out of 10?

[im]

So far this year I've started or contributed to PH threads for the 3 blockbusters that I thought were going to be the stand-out films of 2013...Prometheus, Man Of Steel and Pacific Rim...all flattered to deceive and ultimately were a disappointment.

Gravity is thus carrying all of my hopes that this year won't be a complete wash-out.

[im]

Stunning. Sets the bar again on visuals. Story was so-so but boy that was almost inconsequential to lavish spectacle laid before you.

Some scenes were so realistic that I was almost awe-struck. Music accompanying was likewise pitched to perfection and completely conveyed the impending dread.

After Avatar I thought it would take a while for the rest of the industry to catch up...tonight they did...and moved it on a bit too.

8.5/10

[im]

Vipers said:

Gaz. said:

Vipers said:

Two things struck me, I would have thought any differential pressure between the capsule ans space would prevent a door being opened, and why did the outer door close from the outside, not from the inside which be safer, no doubt some space buff will know.

I thought all doors could be operated from both sides?

Sorry don't mean they couldn't be opened from both sides, I mean the outside door opened outwards as apposed to inwards.

Bearing in mind the capsule is normally at a higher pressure than the outside, same as doors on a diving chamber, they close from inside and get pressurised.

I am not saying they actually do close from the inside, but could have been an oversight in the film.

[im]

porridge said:

How much better are the visuals over Avatar - a small leap or giant leap?

When I saw Avatar I loved the visuals and depth of 3D, but didn't much enjoy the story. If the visuals in Gravity are leaps and bounds over Avatar then happy to see it, but if not then would rather spend the money elsewhere.

Whats different I feel is that the visuals are of 'real' objects that exist...in Avatar they were of creatures/landscapes etc that don't...so it's easier to be drawn in. The depiction of weightlessness is the best I've ever seen and by some way and is something that you can measure against 'reality'. Flying a dragon isn't.

This, to me, has moved the 'game' on a bit - not a quantum leap but a step forward for sure. Much of it is also down to the camera work/motion which is pretty bloody impressive.

One things for sure, the guys involved in the creation of this film wont be out of work for quite some time.

[im]

pstruck said:

Which is why I'm more than happy to await the Blu-Ray release and then watch it at home.

...and you'll miss the entire point of the production and be left with just the story which is very average. It's the 3-D & IMAX elements that raise it above anything you'll get on a TV...even a 3-D TV.

[im]

pstruck said:

im said:

pstruck said:

Which is why I'm more than happy to await the Blu-Ray release and then watch it at home.

...and you'll miss the entire point of the production and be left with just the story which is very average. It's the 3-D & IMAX elements that raise it above anything you'll get on a TV...even a 3-D TV.

Oh well, so be it. I watch a lot of films at home and would far rather do that than spend a tenner (or however much it costs these days) to sit in the cinema and have the experience ruined by some ignorant scrotes scoffing doritos, chatting and texting all the way through it.

I find my HC set-up, combined with the comfort and peace of sitting at home with a few cold beers makes for a very enjoyable movie experience. Anyway, I have no access to IMAX down here and 3-D does my nut in.

Each to their own. This suits me.

As has been said here:

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/gravity/

"Framestore has produced truly remarkable footage and done more than just enhance the story – their work is central to the story."

As you say though, each to their own - but I feel you will be missing a large part of the enjoyment and this will colour your view of the film.

Actually, when you've seen it please post up your review of it - it'll be interesting to see what a home viewing throws up.

[im]

Me & the missus went to the Crawley Cineworld IMAX 3-D and it was £13.14 per person (£26.28) - we got 10% off for booking on-line.

[im]

MiniMan64 said:

Really want to see this at the cinema but I've got a 1 month old at home and work is flat out.

Boo.

Baby sitter? It's a very short film.

[im]

Elderly said:

Go Google it

He doesn't need to - I explained it all on page 6.

Keep up at the back.

[im]

Vipers said:

Strange really, good opinions on here, then it sort of went downhill.

It's just the ones who want to be seen as 'independent of thought'...'different from the norm'...'having another perspective' etc

[im]

audidoody said:

if you ever wonder what it's like to hover weightless in space above the planet you'll love it.

Otherwise there is always Expendables 3

Condescension, love it.

[im]

chris watton said:

...what with painfully pretentious lefty art house fodder on one side

Only on PH could somebody slip in a political dig at the left on a thread about a particular film.

Don't worry, I'm sure there's a bio-pic of Sarah Pallin in the works somewhere you'll enjoy.

[im]

chris watton said:

im said:

Only on PH could somebody slip in a political dig at the left on a thread about a particular film.

Don't worry, I'm sure there's a bio-pic of Sarah Pallin in the works somewhere you'll enjoy.

Why do you think I'd want to watch a biopic of a US right wing fruitloop?

Er...on the UKIP thread:

chris watton said:

Actually, I think we can all thank Cameron for foisting another Labour government on us - I usually vote Tory, but wouldn't vote for CMD's flavour of Tory, which is nothing more than an ever so slightly diluted version of Labour.

Now, can we get back on topic and leave the politics for the appropriate threads/forums.

[im]

chris watton said:

im said:

Now, can we get back on topic and leave the politics for the appropriate threads/forums.

That's fine, but you didn't really answer my question, why do you think I would be interested in US extreme right wing politics?

Because you're clearly to the right of the current Tory party as is she. Please leave your political affiliations at the door as it'll only derail the thread when somebody from the left takes umbridge at your inappropriate insertion of politics into a thread about a current film.

Ta muchly.

[im]

chris watton said:

I agree - however, aren't you guilty of the exact same thing by mentioning a right wing US nutter, presumably for added effect to hold some fake moral high ground?

As for the film, it was well above average.

I'm a reactionary.

...and the film was great

[im]

CrutyRammers said:

Why did she have to let Clooney go? As someone else said already, they'd already stopped moving...he wasn't going anywhere. Made no sense at all.

Had they stopped moving? I must have missed that bit as I thought they were still effectively which means that if Clooney had tugged on the cord he might have slowed down or stopped but he would have set Bullock moving in the opposite direction.

Newtons 3rd law: To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction

Thus in space each thrust requires a counterthrust, each spin requires a counterspin...yada yada yada.

[im]

CrutyRammers said:

im said:

Thus in space each thrust requires a counterthrust, each spin requires a counterspin...yada yada yada.

dude...spoiler!!!!


Looked like they'd stopped to me - she was caught in the ropes, he was hanging off the tether. If they were still moving together then he wouldn't have flown away when he unhooked. If they were both stopped, then him pulling on the tether would have pulled her towards him, but she was attached to the rope, so wouldn't have gone anywhere.

It struck me as an attempt to make a "Cliffhanger" moment, but it doesn't work in space. You don't "fall off" things like that.

Ah-ha!

I agree with you then!

[im]

fatbutt said:

This could be interesting for those with issues with the science side.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/64696

That article was written by an Astronaut so his words have some merit/weight...Here's his final paragraph:

---

Final thoughts

People often get confused about the purpose of these articles. There is no one-to-one correlation between getting every nitpicky detail right and a movie being good. What I want is for filmmakers to know the details about the world they’re exploring, and then chose to take some artistic license where they have to for the purpose of making a better film. GRAVITY excels at this.

The technology is all based thoroughly on the real world of the space program. Many of the things that happen to the characters are based on real-world events, or in the case of the Kessler Syndrome, real-world concerns. The result is a staggering level of immersion that it feels like an IMAX documentary as much as it does an IMAX feature film.

Sure they sped some things up, ignored some safety protocols, cheated a bit on the physics, and screwed around with some orbital mechanics. But they deliberately did it to improve the film, and gave us a little wink at the same time, without going into long pedantic scenes about it. The result is something tight, lean, and dramatic: cinema stripped down to its core, and reinvented.

I agree with James Cameron, a man who knows a little about both space and filmmaking. Gravity is the best space film ever made.

---

[im]

As has been alluded to a few posts back - you can't have an exciting film set outside of a space craft unless you let go of certain obvious restrictions that reality places on humans like the speed at which you move in zero g with a great hulking space suit on - it would be a snore-bore and frankly you'd have no film.

Allow reality to totally dictate the premise and everyone dies almost straight away. What are the odds of recovering a spinning-away-at-speed Bullock? And thats just the first predicament they have to deal with.