-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GRAVITY |OT| - From Director Alfonso Cuarón
- Thread starter 3N16MA
- Start date
a Master Ninja
Member
Two thoughts:
First, I was tripped out hearing George Clooney and Sandra Bullock mention my hometown, Lake Zurich.
Second, for me, this had the most impressive 3D since Avatar. I try to only see 3D movies that are actually shot in 3D, and even then they don't often get a strong reaction from me, but dammit I legitimately flinched at some debris from a sequence in the middle of the film. The director's patented long takes also meshed perfectly with the limitations of 3D at 24fps.
First, I was tripped out hearing George Clooney and Sandra Bullock mention my hometown, Lake Zurich.
Second, for me, this had the most impressive 3D since Avatar. I try to only see 3D movies that are actually shot in 3D, and even then they don't often get a strong reaction from me, but dammit I legitimately flinched at some debris from a sequence in the middle of the film. The director's patented long takes also meshed perfectly with the limitations of 3D at 24fps.
The 3D was amazing. I usually don't like 3D, but I'd highly recommend Gravity in 3D. What an experience.
MoG EclipsE
Member
Yes, if story is what you care about, this is not for you. I am the same way. That is just my opinion though.
WyndhamPrice
Member
The story isn't shitty, it's just really simple, because why would it need to be anything else
Passing on this film because it's not Dostoevsky with astronauts is phenomenally short sighted
I feel like people have forgotten how to just enjoy a good, simple story in their films
Passing on this film because it's not Dostoevsky with astronauts is phenomenally short sighted
I feel like people have forgotten how to just enjoy a good, simple story in their films
Yeah, I saw this part as that she was still a child. Especially when compared to Clooney's character. She was still scared, unsure of herself, and felt like she didn't belong in space. The part where she hallucinates Clooney's character is the turning point, and it is shown that she has matured/moved on in the underwater scene, both by the frog (she's no longer a tadpole), and by taking off her suit (shedding her skin).
Pretty much agrees with everything Sculli have said in this thread, including how I wouldn't categorize this as SciFi.
What a visual and audio treat. And to think I said I didn't think 3D would've made a difference. That opening sequence was beautifully shot. I loved the colors in this film.
. Would go see it again.
What a visual and audio treat. And to think I said I didn't think 3D would've made a difference. That opening sequence was beautifully shot. I loved the colors in this film.
The way the earth's background goes from a beautiful blue from the start to bleak and dark when shit was going down was a nice touch
The story is simple, it's not bad. It's a straightforward survival tale that is well enough crafted to make the movie interesting.
The movie is pretty heavily focused on giving you the experience of isolation and the unique challenges of space travel and it does that very well. It gives you enough of a story to hang your hat on and then focuses on what it wants to do which is to give you an experience. That it does very well.
I do think the characters that Clooney and Bullock create are very well realized and played incredibly well. I really enjoyed both their performances so if you like seeing actors give really good performances that might be a reason to see it even if you don't think the story would necessarily appeal to you,
FlutterPuffs
Member
Story was great.
Come on guys, it was a story about survival in space, Cuaron cut the fat to tell us that story in a way that has never been told before on the big screen. So yes, the story is pretty simple on paper, but that doesn't mean it isnt good.
Hell, here's a fucking analogy for you. It's like sex. Just because you know that it ends with an orgasm all the time doesn't make the sex less enjoyable.
what's the point of people's reviews and impressions if you only listen to the one that confirms what you already wanted to think?
Barbacoatl
Banned
Fake imax.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
I'm sorry sir, but respectfully you have no idea what you are talking about.
Name one other movie that gives the experience or impression of being in space like this one does? You can't. Know why? Because it's not that easy to do convincingly. No other movie has ever told a story like this in space. The concert of direction, practical effects, and yes top notch superlative CGI effects, working in tandem made this movie an absolute work of fucking art.
It's okay if you don't understand how impressive the movie is, but believe me, the seamlessness of how real Gravity looks is far, FAR frpm being easy to reproduce. It took a lot of effort and skill to make this movie.
And the story may not be overly complicated, but even though it's simple it's still a good story. There are a lot of nuances and subtle undertones in this simple story that the movie conveys very smoothly. It does it so effortlessly that again, like the effects, most people probably don't even realize it unless they are paying attention for it.
Gravity is a masterpiece, in every sense of the word. It will be studied and scrutinized for many years to come.
Saw it last night with the gf, can't remember the last time I left the theatre and was just like "that was awesome". Best movie I've seen at the theatre in the past 5 years easily. If someone said they didn't like it...I seriously would not believe them. I would think they are trying to simply be an asshole, it was a beautifully shot film with a solid script and realistic performances.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
If anything, there's TOO much story. Cut out all the melodrama, the tragic backstories, the huge overbearing music, the monologues. There's a much quieter version of this movie that's even better, that doesn't pretend that Bullock's character is interesting.
MoG EclipsE
Member
Yes it is good for the experience. I never said it wasn't. I just think this is what this movie is focused on. I was only stating my opinion on how good the movie really was when you overlook the "experience" of being in space. Globox asked if the story itself was good because that is what he enjoys in a movie. He doesn't care for visuals and such. I was only trying to be as truthful about my opinion on the story in this movie as I could. We are all entitled to our own opinion, so if you think the story was just excellent, don't reply to me saying I do not know what I am talking about, go and inform Globox on why the story in this movie is such a great one...
BronsonLee
Member
I'll be blunt here. If that weak argument which runs counter to near universal praise from critics and plebs like us was good enough to tell you not to see this movie, it isn't for you.
You can't discount an entire section of a movie's appeal and then think your opinion is valid. At all. It's a pathetic argument.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. There were definitely moments during it where I thought some of the dialogue was just necessary. Certain parts would have worked even better if there was silence. Probably my only nitpick about the whole thing.
Barbacoatl
Banned
People saying green screen stuff isn't all that impressive clearly have no clue how this was made.
Yet they keep talking.
Yet they keep talking.
Inferno313
Banned
The visuals and "experience" IS the story in Gravity. You can't take the story-telling out of the story and say that you're only interested in plot. If that's the case you'll probably have a much better time reading wikipedia summaries than watching films.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
No, I never said the story was excellent, I said it was very good. Certainly not as great a story as Lawrence of Arabia, but for a survival story it was very good.
However, me saying that you had no idea what you were talking about had nothing to do with the story. You said:
The directing and effects in Gravity were astoundingly impressive. Not only were the transitions between practical and CG effects almost transparent, but the detail in all of it was breathtaking. It's on par with Cameron's obsessive detail he put into Titanic. But it's the directing of Gravity that makes it the gem that it is. Gradual pans, no shaky cam AT ALL, long slow takes that allow the audience to actually SEE what is happening. His direction sets the pace with the action perfectly. It draws the audience in and envelops them, making the experience so real that anyone watching feels like they are there. It's masterful. More importantly, it's VERY difficult to pull off convincingly.
If you can't appreciate the work and effort that went into making this, then, like I said, you just don't understand plain and simple. And there's nothing wrong with that, we aren't all film connoisseurs. Most people will never get how big an accomplishment or how well crafted this movie is.
MoG EclipsE
Member
Exactly, that's why I said earlier that the visuals and the experience is the focus of this film. From what Globox was saying, he does not care for that. Thus, I suggested in that case that it may not be for him. Although I did enjoy the film for what it is. No one needs to justify anything about the movie to me, I have seen it. There is no need for people to get defensive about a movie if you like it.
Globox asked, pages ago in this thread, whether or not the story in this was any good, visuals and "experience" aside. I don't think it is. While everyone is so focused on discrediting my opinion, not a single person has yet taken their time to inform Globox on why they think the story is great and why they think he may like it...
Barbacoatl
Banned
I was expecting Doctor Zhivago in space.
RustyNails
Member
Anyone else think M Night Shyamalan could have made this movie? Its like a mvoie he always wanted to make.
BronsonLee
Member
You might be in trouble if you see this movie.
It's pretty tense, and doesn't really let up very often.
Also since we're moving goalposts here, let's plant one in the field;
Explain to me how SLIGHT GRAVITY SPOILERS
A fucking eighteen minute one take scene with no cutting while IN SPACE is not A: technically impressive B: visually impressive and C: not damn impressive from a story standpoint of keeping that up for as long as it did.
Are you going to tell me the apparently 13 minute long take in another movie isn't impressive on a story standpoint too? Cause that's a battle you'd lose
Are you going to tell me the apparently 13 minute long take in another movie isn't impressive on a story standpoint too? Cause that's a battle you'd lose
Inferno313
Banned
BronsonLee
Member
Unfortunately, I doubt many people in this thread have seen Before Midnight.
Bah. Edited that out. My apologies. If it makes you feel any better, I haven't seen it either. I just know about it from Sculli.
...Yes it's all his fault
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
It's fucking intense. The first time I saw it my gf and I just sat for like ten minutes, watching the credits, because we felt exhausted. We also felt glad to be alive, lol.
Picture the plane crash in Flight, but for 90 minutes long almost continually. There are a few scenes where it slows down, but not for long. That's Gravity.
Max Armstrong
Member
TWIST: Sandra Bullock was George Clooney all along.
Inferno313
Banned
Oh, not my point. I've seen the film. I was just commenting on how I wish that trilogy of films were more popular than they are, haha.
MoG EclipsE
Member
It is visually and technically impressive. When I say I think it's average, I mean average for a big budget film. I thought many other films were as impressive in many different ways. Although I do fail to see how this guaranties a good story.
Inferno313
Banned
What other big budget films were on a similar level?
BronsonLee
Member
Oh damn you!
Thanks for letting me know though. It's not a story spoiler but it may make people sad. Also I love that damn series of movies. Sunrise is my favorite movie with Sunset close behind. I made a thread on it a while back.
You fail to see a lot of things, I'm thinking. Least of all being discounting everything but the story of Gravity, which is easily the weakest part of the whole package.
It's a shitty argument presented to dissuade people from watching the movie, which is fine, but if you're removing the numerous visual and technical marvels that come from this, you're out of your mind. And you're clearly degrading your opinion from 'crappy CG' to 'average for a big budget film'.
I'd say $100 mil at this rate isn't really a big budget film. And this movie stars two A-List actors who could easily command a good portion of that budget.
Do you want to discount Oblivion's visual effects too? That'll end well.
To be blunt, the argument you're presenting is junk. If I remove large sections of other movies and focus on the weakest thing presented, I pretty clearly won't like it. Like someone said earlier, very few movies are above reproach or criticism. This isn't one of them. It's fine to not like the movie. Your reasoning is just pathetically way off base.
Aesius
Member
Damn!
I still really want to see it. I may go during a matinee or something when the theater isn't as crowded. I think part of my panic during Flight was the fact that I was in the middle of the row with 10 people on either side of me and couldn't escape.
WhiskeyKnight
Member
One thing really bothered me:
For a movie whose central villain is Newtonian physics, it sure played fast and loose with the rules here.
Okay, so the part where Clooney drifts off into space makes no sense to me. Sandra Bullock's leg is caught in some tethers attached to the international space station. Her motion in relation to the space station has stopped. She grabs onto a tether attached to Clooney's suit, stopping his momentum relative to the station as well. At this point they are both "stopped" in space. (I realize they are still moving at thousands of miles per hour, but they are stopped relative to the space station.) Clooney insists she let go or they will both die. She refuses, but he detaches anyway, and starts drifting off at a rather fast rate away from the station.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE. What force is acting on Clooney at that point to move him away from the station? Her foot is caught in the tether, which arrested both of their motion relative to the station. All she had to do was pull gently on the tether and Clooney would have begun drifting slowly towards the station. Even if Clooney did for some reason decide to detach, he wouldn't start accelerating away from the station! He would just stay in place, fairly close to the station.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE. What force is acting on Clooney at that point to move him away from the station? Her foot is caught in the tether, which arrested both of their motion relative to the station. All she had to do was pull gently on the tether and Clooney would have begun drifting slowly towards the station. Even if Clooney did for some reason decide to detach, he wouldn't start accelerating away from the station! He would just stay in place, fairly close to the station.
For a movie whose central villain is Newtonian physics, it sure played fast and loose with the rules here.
Spoilering just in case (it's only camera/editing technique talk):
Some people will want to take away points from the movie's long seamless shots by saying it was all done digitally anyway and didn't require setting up and executing an entire chain of dominoes (so to speak) in one go with everything and everyone going off as planned. Additionally, you're 'cheating' by being able to use a virtual camera that can move in any way and do everything perfectly.
To that, I say that the extra tools and convenience afforded by CG and digitally sets wont do much good if the people using them aren't good at what they do. Anyone can run a camera for 18 minutes without cutting it, but you still need very creative and knowledgeable people to know how to fill those 18 minutes with stuff, and the challenge can simply be in how to fill a shot for that long and keep it moving.
To that, I say that the extra tools and convenience afforded by CG and digitally sets wont do much good if the people using them aren't good at what they do. Anyone can run a camera for 18 minutes without cutting it, but you still need very creative and knowledgeable people to know how to fill those 18 minutes with stuff, and the challenge can simply be in how to fill a shot for that long and keep it moving.
SPACE MAGNETS. Magnets in space. Placed there by the Russian revolutionist army. Hence why space is mostly metal and more dangerous than ever.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
I posted my theory to that in the spoiler thread, but I'll repost it here for you.
WARNING! Spoilers below, only read if you've seen the movie:
Here is a fifth alternative: looking at the pic above, and seeing how far out from the ISS they are, what if the station had a slight rotational motion to it? Centrifugal force would be "swinging" them both away from the station. Because bullock has the ropes around her foot, which would exert some force on her towards the station, most likely enough force to counteract her centrifugal force away from the rotation, she would be pulled towards the ISS. But with the combined mass of both her and Clooney at the end of the rope, their centrifugal forces added up might be greater than the force of the rope pulling them back, hence both of them being "pulled" away from the ISS. Once Clooney let go, Bullock's much reduced mass was not enough to overcome the force of the rope, hence her being "pulled" back towards the ISS while Clooney was essentially slingshot out and away from the station due to centrifugal forces.
The physics of it works, as long as the station was indeed rotating slightly. Unfortunately there is no way to completely answer this question within the context of the movie, so we will most likely never have a definitive answer.
The physics of it works, as long as the station was indeed rotating slightly. Unfortunately there is no way to completely answer this question within the context of the movie, so we will most likely never have a definitive answer.
Forsaken82
Member
The tethers were detaching because they were wrapped around an object, not actually connected, so the longer she held on Clooney as he was still essentially being pulled outward she would have also had no chance to return to the ship because the tether would not stay connected for much longer
MoG EclipsE
Member
Life of pi, Avengers, Avatar, king kong, 2012, Lord of the Rings, Prometheus, transformers, Titanic, etc...
I thought some of these were better IMO. It may be hard to compare because they are very different movies, but overall just as well done visually.
BronsonLee
Member
With the exception of Life of Pi, those are fucking tentpole movies with budgets far and away above that of Gravity's. And didn't Life of Pi, you know, win a ton of goddamn awards for this sort of thing?
Avengers cost 200 million and I'd say Gravity/Oblivion scorch that shit. And don't even get me started on the rest you named.
I won't spoil mine because I don't mind, but this kind of thing is Cuaron's bag. Children of Men was revolutionary with this shit. In Gravity's it's taken to the nth degree
Biff
Member
You guys are turning this movie into Drive all over again. Over-hyping it beyond reality; ruining the experience for would-be moviegoers.
If you haven't yet seen this movie, stop reading right now. Just stop. It's good enough to be worth your money, so just go see it and enjoy it on your own with moderated expectations.
If you haven't yet seen this movie, stop reading right now. Just stop. It's good enough to be worth your money, so just go see it and enjoy it on your own with moderated expectations.
MoG EclipsE
Member
Oh damn you!
Also I love that damn series of movies. Sunrise is my favorite movie with Sunset close behind. I made a thread on it a while back.
You fail to see a lot of things, I'm thinking. Least of all being discounting everything but the story of Gravity, which is easily the weakest part of the whole package.
It's a shitty argument presented to dissuade people from watching the movie, which is fine, but if you're removing the numerous visual and technical marvels that come from this, you're out of your mind. And you're clearly degrading your opinion from 'crappy CG' to 'average for a big budget film'.
I'd say $100 mil at this rate isn't really a big budget film. And this movie stars two A-List actors who could easily command a good portion of that budget.
Do you want to discount Oblivion's visual effects too? That'll end well.
To be blunt, the argument you're presenting is junk. If I remove large sections of other movies and focus on the weakest thing presented, I pretty clearly won't like it. Like someone said earlier, very few movies are above reproach or criticism. This isn't one of them. It's fine to not like the movie. Your reasoning is just pathetically way off base.
Yes the story is the weakest part. Exactly. Which is what I am telling Globox. That is the reason for my initial post, I was offering him/her my opinion on the story itself. Yes, I did also add that I thought the visuals were average, which I do, but that's my opinion and also besides the point.
Hopefully the effects team for this movie doesn't go broke
I still need to see Children of Men. I was pretty interested in it before, very much so now. Also, Cuaron's Harry Potter movie was my favorite of the bunch.
I'll second this, actually. Also, I doubt Bullock is going to be nominated for an Oscar for this movie. That's crazy-talk.
Inferno313
Banned
Drive is excellent, this film is excellent. I'm going to talk to other people about how excellent I think these films are. It's not my problem that people cannot maintain realistic expectations.
BronsonLee
Member
And your point was made long ago. Congratulations on going against the grain. As a prize I offer you this collective hand bowl. I applaud you for having the courage and bravery to be wrong about everything
We're done here. I'm not interested in you continually not backing up your opinion with anything.
MoG EclipsE
Member
You are right. Also some of those named are terrible movies. BUT , imo you cannot compare fantasy/super hero movies or w/e with a sci fi movie such as Gravity. I believe they all achieved well above their goal visually for the type of movies they are. **Not saying the movies mentioned are any good.