GRAVITY |OT| - From Director Alfonso Cuarón

Scullibundo said:
It's 3:40am, I'm on my phone and my girlfriend is snoring next to me, so needless to say I can't type up a huge post. What I will say is that many different genres explore the human condition, and I don't think taking place in space is a big enough requisite for something being classified as science fiction - though I am I huge Sci-Fi fan and readily agree that the best sci-fi often explores the human condition.

I guess what I'm saying is:

Sci-Fi narratives commonly explore the human condition and are set in space, but exploring the human condition and being set in space are not the criteria for something being sci-fi.
Click to expand...

Hard science fiction typically focuses on the technology and the situation that the technology creates. Specifically, Gravity is a disaster film set in an alternate future that happens to take place in space. Essentially, the question that is being asked is,
"How would you survive in space if you lose your connection to Earth? (Also, note the overt reference to the title here!)
.

I mean, there are people who think Person of Interest isn't science fiction because it is set in contemporary New York and we have computers that spy on our information. The thing is, we don't have intelligent AI that can control cameras and phones and basically stalk and individual using surveillance methods placed all around the city.

Things get confused the closer it gets to "reality", but it still is science fiction if it involves technology as its key motivator.

duckroll said:
Here's a more interesting discussion than whether Gravity is "scifi" or not:

Have they mentioned if there are any plans for nice home video extra features? It would be amazing if they mastered an audio track without the score. :)
Click to expand...
I've been arguing for a score-only, no dialog/sound effects track. lol
 
Scullibundo said:
I guess what I'm saying is:

Sci-Fi narratives commonly explore the human condition and are set in space, but exploring the human condition and being set in space are not the criteria for something being sci-fi.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't preclude it from being science-fiction either. Maybe your threshold for fictional variables to classify something as science-fiction is a lot higher than others', but that doesn't mean your threshold is the right one. How many more fictional variables does a movie need in order for you to classify it as science-fiction? If this movie were set around Mars or the Moon, would that make it a science-fiction film?
 
Dax01 said:
But that doesn't preclude it from being science-fiction either. Maybe your threshold for fictional variables to classify something as science-fiction is a lot higher than others', but that doesn't mean your threshold is the right one. How many more fictional variables does a movie need in order for you to classify it as science-fiction? If this movie were set around Mars or the Moon, would that make it a science-fiction film?
Click to expand...
It's either set in the future or depicts a world with technologies that may one day be feasible, but don't currently exist. Eg: I see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as sci-fi, grounded as it is.

firehawk - I'm well aware if what hard sci-fi is.
 
Scullibundo said:
It's either set in the future or depicts a world with technologies that may one day be feasible, but don't currently exist. Eg: I see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as sci-fi, grounded as it is.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'm seeing your point here, and I don't think we can come to an agreement until we define the parameters of science-fiction. Which is to say, I don't think you can blame people for calling it science-fiction.
 
Scullibundo said:
It's either set in the future or depicts a world with technologies that may one day be feasible, but don't currently exist. Eg: I see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as sci-fi, grounded as it is.

firehawk - I'm well aware if what hard sci-fi is.
Click to expand...
It is impossible for both the Hubble and the ISS to be on the same orbital path, unless something drastically happens to the Hubble that brings it closer to Earth or they boosted the ISS into a much higher orbit.
I feel like that alone makes it science fiction, because it's such a key part of the film's plot.
 
firehawk12 said:
It is impossible for both the Hubble and the ISS to be on the same orbital path, unless something drastically happens to the Hubble that brings it closer to Earth or they boosted the ISS into a much higher orbit.
I feel like that alone makes it science fiction, because it's such a key part of the film's plot.
Click to expand...
That's like calling Titanic sci-fi because the star-scape above the sinking ship isn't that of the Atlantic and because the buoyancy of the door they try to float on is questionable. But we both know it's there to serve narrative purposes and that what both films are actually operating within are a Consensus Reality.
 
kewlmyc said:
God this movie was fucking amazing. I'm glad I got dragged to see it.

This movie also killed any childhood dreams of being an astronaut. Fuck that shit.
Click to expand...

Haha these are my girlfriend's exact feelings. She was
dodging debris
for half the movie, and for the other half, she was
death-gripping my arm during the scenes where Ryan would reach out to grab a hold of the satellites.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVUDkC8_wrQ#t=365

(If it doesn't track properly, go to 6:05)

From the director's own mouth:
- genre listings are confusing, who gives a fuck
- if people want to call the movie scifi he's happy with it
- if you don't think it is, whatever, that works too
- in the end the only thing that matters to him is that it's grounded in reality

DISCUSSION OVER.

BONUS:
- he doesn't even consider Children of Men to be "science fiction", lol
 
Scullibundo said:
That's like calling Titanic sci-fi because the star-scape above the sinking ship isn't that of the Atlantic and because the buoyancy of the door they try to float on is questionable.
Click to expand...
What? No it's not. That's a ridiculous analogy, Sculli. You're stretching certain minutiae too far.
 
Dax01 said:
But the points mentioned by firehawk and myself aren't minutiae – they're major drivers for events of the film. Without that, you couldn't the film.
Click to expand...
We're going to have to agree to disagree about what science fiction entails for now at least, because my phone is dying and neither one of us is likely to change the others' mind.
 
ComputerMKII said:
All those eulogistic reviews make me afraid. Every time a movie or a game was praised like this it ended up being disappointing.
Click to expand...
I think it's fair to say that if you have seen a Curaon film and are a fan of film of as a medium, you will have all your expectations met.
 
Just got back, good science fiction adventure. As science fiction goes, it's pretty hard. I got pretty hard at times watching this science fiction adventure. The science parts were cool. The fiction stuff was good too.

---

It'd be a better movie with half the lines, perhaps less. But as an experience it's one that left me in awe.

Wasn't impressed with the score. Too much bombast, too much fanfare. Moments that would be better served with silence are filled with swelling music instead, or the babble of panicking human beings. Like the writing itself, the music feels irrelevant, almost. It doesn't serve to underscore the experience but rather just stomps along.

But goddamn did it look good. Cuaron and Lubezki. Fuck yeah. I'll be watching this again.
 
Well, that was freakin beautiful. Sandra Bullock did an amazing job. And George Clooney was really good too. I can't see anybody else in that role. He had that calm and charismatic demeanour that was needed to get the team (well what was left of it) through the problems

Alfonso Cuaron did really good. I feel like this is for space what Jurassic park was for dinosaurs

Hard to explain why but it helps that there was a 6 year old kid right beside me whose eyes were so wide during the whole thing and it reminded me of myself when I saw jurassic park. Dude was even going on about space facts to his mom after the film finished

Really tense film. More effective than any horror movies I've seen in the past little while

Edit: and to further the JP comparisons. A lot of people after that were all like "thank God dinosaurs are extinct" but I just wanted them brought back into our ecosystem even more. And after this film I want to experience seeing the earth from orbit and being in zero gravity more than ever! :(
 
The tension was insane. I wish I hadn't been spoiled by this thread, though. People need to watch their spoiler tags.
 
firehawk12 said:
I really hope this ends the trend of hard science fiction movies that end with a fucking monster reveal
. That shit needs to stop!
Click to expand...

That's clearly for
Gravity 2, when Ed Harris realizes that Kowalski's hallucination was actually an alien symbiote that landed on Earth with Stone. It was the frog that swims out of the water in the end.
 
duckroll said:
Here's a more interesting discussion than whether Gravity is "scifi" or not:

Have they mentioned if there are any plans for nice home video extra features? It would be amazing if they mastered an audio track without the score. :)
Click to expand...

Now that you've got the idea in my head I will be crushingly disappointed if we don't get this.

Amazing film; I just think some of the tension in the bigger scenes could have been amplified had the music not been blaring.
With that being said, I think the score is fantastic and was put to good use regardless, but I would just like an option to turn it off. :)
 
Dresden said:
That's clearly for
Gravity 2, when Ed Harris realizes that Kowalski's hallucination was actually an alien symbiote that landed on Earth with Stone. It was the frog that swims out of the water in the end.
Click to expand...
Don't give
Danny Boyle
any ideas.
 
Dresden said:
That's clearly for
Gravity 2, when Ed Harris realizes that Kowalski's hallucination was actually an alien symbiote that landed on Earth with Stone. It was the frog that swims out of the water in the end.
Click to expand...


Gravity 2 = Rise of the Planet of the Apes 2
 
I have to agree that the narrative and Sandra Bullock's character arc weren't much to write home about. I would've loved to have seen a Gravity with less dialogue and unnecessary character arcs. But with that being said, Gravity is still a very good film to me because of the strength of its visuals, its score, and the palpable tension that stays strong throughout it. God, I felt exhausted walking out of the theatre!

And I loved all of the long one take shots. It's amazing to me how Lubezki's gorgeous cinematography and Cuarón's editing made the film progress so seamlessly. Scenes flow super well with very few cuts. It's all so expertly crafted from a technical standpoint.
 
Deputy Dangle said:
I have to agree that the narrative and Sandra Bullock's character arc weren't much to write home about. I would've loved to have seen a Gravity with less dialogue and unnecessary character arcs. But with that being said, Gravity is still a very good film to me because of the strength of its visuals, its score, and the palpable tension that stays strong throughout it. God, I felt exhausted walking out of the theatre!

And I loved all of the long one take shots. It's amazing to me how Lubezki's gorgeous cinematography and Cuarón's editing made the film progress so seamlessly. Scenes flow super well with very few cuts. It's all so expertly crafted from a technical standpoint.
Click to expand...

I thought the same too. I probably wouldve even been fine if Gravity was a silent film.
 
Great film. My favorite scene was the one
when Ryan enters the ISS and takes her suit off, curls into the fetal position and has an "umbilical" cord seemingly coming from her navel, great imagery and it fit the symbology as well

Can't wait to see how this looks when it gets a home release (BRING ON 4k ALREADY!)

edit: And my 2D 12:30 showing was significantly fuller than Rush last Saturday.
 
Hey, Hey nerds will the IMAX 3D experience give me motion sickness, The Hobbit 3D is the only one i liked and didn't make my eyes hurt.
 
Just saw it, and I have to say, it was a goddamn excellent movie. I see a distinct split between people who liked it's character development and interactions and those who liked it's imagery and urgency. I think they inform each other and I think both are very strong facets.

So much of sci fi has been a sort of escape. A lot of people go to sci fi movies or read sci books or play sci fi games to escape to what could be, to go this mysterious and fascinating place. I really really like the fact that Gravity was kind of the opposite of that. For as much as we want to escape to space like Stone, as much as that is some idyllic new frontier, it's also a simply inhospitable wasteland. It's dreamy as an escape, but cold and lifeless as a reality. The significance of this movie to me was the fact that it's worthwhile to go back to earth; it's worthwhile to keep trying.

The last shot also acts a perfect analogue for the theme I think the movie's trying to relay- Stone is struggling to get up- gravity, like life, will continue to pull her down, will continue to fight against her. But she gets up- she wills herself to move regardless of the forces and flaws that work against her. While gravity may be tough to contest with at times, it anchors us and allows us to have focus and be on the same plane with others. It may be tough, but the alternative is floating aimlessly forever out of a lack of desire to have a direction. It was a strange film in that it made me excited to get out of the theater in a good way- the escape can be great, but what can be even better is what you accomplish when you stop running.
 
duckroll said:
I think the reason is that partly the material fits the concept of a "3D" film perfectly, but also that the way it was filmed was conceived in a way which maximizes the impact of 3D as a visual medium.

The way the camera work is designed is something you would generally only find in 3 types of footage:
- documentaries
- animation
- videogames

The reason is that normal films do not employ a sort of third person active camera for the entire duration of the film. Documentaries tend to do it for immersion and detailed visual documentation. It is easy to employ in animation because it is a virtual camera. Same with videogames but with the added element of the camera being meant to track a specific character on screen.

Since Gravity uses only the third persona camera and first person views for the entire duration of the film, it is incredibly personal and immersive, and as such plays perfectly into the elements which 3D is meant to enhance. Never does it feel like we're watching a wide shot of characters and a background layered on the screen, nor are there moments where characters are just sitting there talking to each other in a flat 2D way (in terms of cinematography). Instead the entire film feels fully three dimensional at all times.

It's not a new technique so much as using old techniques which work brilliantly with the format they decided to go for.
Click to expand...

Great points. I can definitely see it
 
rhfb said:
Great film. My favorite scene was the one
when Ryan enters the ISS and takes her suit off, curls into the fetal position and has an "umbilical" cord seemingly coming from her navel, great imagery and it fit the symbology as well

Can't wait to see how this looks when it gets a home release (BRING ON 4k ALREADY!)

edit: And my 2D 12:30 showing was significantly fuller than Rush last Saturday.
Click to expand...

You're doing it wrong.
 
Technosteve said:
Hey, Hey nerds will the IMAX 3D experience give me motion sickness, The Hobbit 3D is the only one i liked and didn't make my eyes hurt.
Click to expand...

I can see some parts in the beginning being a bit nauseating, particularly when Bullock is spinning in space like you see in the trailers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
941
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
Cryptocurrency |OT| Nothing from Money
129 130 131 132 133
7K
669K
crowbrow replied
Straight & Alternative |OT|
37
5K
Astral Dog replied
Top Bottom