GRAVITY -- directed by Alfonso Cuaron

I wasn't a big fan of the 3D.. I saw the pre-screening. So, it wasnt in Imax. But, since I get free movie passes, Ill probably go see it again in an Imax
 
There is a 7min short film that shows the viewpoint of the other end of the conversation Sandra had with some men from Earth. Not trying to reveal the plot.
Its not available online unfortunately, but may be available with the DVD/Blu Ray release. Id love to see it :)

But, does no one know if there is ANY info on how they shot this?
I know that a lot of it was animated years ago. the visuals and lighting, but the actual filming, and making it look like 0-G. How?
 
Eric Boellner said:
Well, in that case, you might not like it, haha. It's definitely slower-paced, character-driven. I'd liken it to maybe something like Cast Away. It's got its twists, but if you're simply looking for a plot, you're not going to be too impressed. What I was trying to say earlier is that there's more plot than the trailers let on, but at the end of the day, it's all about the "gravity" of it, more than the twists and turns.
Click to expand...

Perfect example. I did not like Castaway, and I love Tom Hanks. Not much of a plot in that one.
 
I though the film was amazing. Gripping from beginning to end. And perfectly executed on a technical level. There wasn't a single frame that did not feel anything less than 100 percent convincing. I wouldn't call it a character study. It's too immediate an experience for that. Castaway took place over a long span of time. This unfolds almost in real time. It's a situational study of one character under extreme duress. It's not like there are long sequences of people talking about their feelings or something. It's a roller coaster ride and a damn amazing one.
 
Last edited:
There's no possible way I could ever fully describe how incredible this movie is. It's awe inspiring. I haven't felt so transported by a movie since I first saw Jurassic Park in theaters when I was a kid. I can't think of a movie that's so elevated. This is the movie that everyone pretended AVATAR was.
 
Seeing this in the IMAX simply blew me away.
Scene after scene, I couldn't believe it.
This is the only time I have ever liked 3d more than 2d*
Never seen anything like this before
 
Saw it in IMAX 3D this afternoon. Totally blown away. Amazing film.

I noticed some flaws in the 3D IMAX projection system at the theater where I was watching the film. There appeared to be some chromatic-abberation and image softening on both sides of the screen from the first quarter of the screen to the last quarter of the screen. I also noticed the occasional 3D ghosting of some items in the center of the screen. I am sure the film was tac-sharp, but the projection system in the theater I was at definitely had some problems.


< Spoiler Alert: Don't read any further if you haven't seen this film... >



...I don't get why George Clooney's character had to detach ? Once his angular momentum had been equalized, he would not have any additional "drag" effect on Sandra Bullock. It's not like there is any "wind" in space. This was the only tiny minor thing that bugged me with an otherwise very believable simulation of space.
 
TheDingo said:
...I don't get why George Clooney's character had to detach ? Once his angular momentum had been equalized, he would not have any additional "drag" effect on Sandra Bullock. It's not like there is any "wind" in space. This was the only tiny minor thing that bugged me with an otherwise very believable simulation of space.
Click to expand...

With Newton's 3rd law, he would be effectively saving her by pushing away
 
Alfonso Cuarón talks Gravity: The science of sound (Dolby Atmos)

Alfonso Cuarón talks Gravity: The science of sound (Dolby Atmos)

Alfonso Cuarón and Re-recording Mixer Skip Lievsay:
Creating a dramatic sound scape to a dark and vast outer space environment.

Momentum: The Sound of Gravity
 
Something I was thinking about regarding the 3D (which I generally dislike) is that for the great majority of the film the distance between foreground and background elements is so vast, that the 3D is fairly subtle which (to me) is what made it work for me. It was definitely there and in some shots very deep but in general the depth was kept to a manageable level.

The 3D trailer for The Hobbit beforehand though? Mind-numbing. Arrows in focus and faces out, crazy fast moving shots and tons of cutting. Drove me crazy...
 
TheDingo said:
< Spoiler Alert: Don't read any further if you haven't seen this film... >



...I don't get why George Clooney's character had to detach ? Once his angular momentum had been equalized, he would not have any additional "drag" effect on Sandra Bullock. It's not like there is any "wind" in space. This was the only tiny minor thing that bugged me with an otherwise very believable simulation of space.
Click to expand...

Same here. Had he been drifting away from her and knew that his inertia might pull her out with him, and then detached BEFORE that... they would have had me.

As is, the jolt from being attached to her takes place and then he detaches long after they are stable. In fact, he probably would have started drifting back towards her following the initial jolt when the tether stops him from going any further.

But screw all that. I loved this movie.
 
Just saw this one yesterday. I liked it a lot. Suspenseful. Visually beautiful. Original and innovative. I for one have been waiting for Hollywood to make a film of this calibre that is not yet another remake, reboot, or derivative rehash. Gravity feels fresh. There was a great attention to detail. They correctly depicted space as silent for example. That said, there were some plot-points that bothered me while watching it.

MAJOR SPOILERS:

TheDingo said:
... I thought he was just tethered to her, so pushing a "rope" would do nothing.
Click to expand...

That's how I remember it. They were tethered together, and he just released himself and fell away. It made no sense, physically. There shouldn't have been any force pulling Cloony away from Bullock's character. The tether and tangle of lines would have stopped his outward momentum by that point already. His self-sacrifice was pointless and it took me out of the movie for a while.

Also, in real life, Hubble and ISS are in completely different orbits. Hubble is much higher up than ISS by hundreds of miles and moving at a different speed along a different path. There would be no way for two astronauts with nothing but a jet pack to make the necessary course corrections to rendezvous with the ISS from Hubble's position. Even under ideal conditions, getting two orbiting spacecraft together is tricky. It's a bit like trying to intercept a bullet with another bullet, and have them gently touch in mid-air. Of course, the only realistic conclusion to the scenario presented in the movie is Bullock and Clooney slowly dying of asphyxiation after the initial accident, which would admittidly make for an unsatisfying movie.

Same problem presents itself with Bullock getting to the Chinese station. It's not quite as much of a stretch there. At least she has a damaged Soyuz, but even a fully functioning Soyuz probably wouldn't be able to make it.

The only way that the premise of this movie could possibly work is if at some point before the movie takes place, for some reason, NASA decided to spend billions of dollars moving the Hubble into an orbit where it rendezvous with the ISS, an orbit in which it not intended to go. On top of that, the Chinese decide to go to similar great effort to position their station within spitting distance of the ISS.

There are some other issues, but those are the main ones.
 
That is a good point. It did seem like it was just an untethering. I want to believe there was a push there, and her backwards movement at that point would match that (if I remember it correctly).
 
Last edited:
Cuaron had this to say about the untethering scene in an interview with Huffington Post: "What happens is she's grabbing the tethers and he comes with momentum. His momentum pulls her. They're moving together. There's a wide shot that shows they keep moving and you can see the background keeps on moving. What happens is, if he lets go, his force stops and the force of the tether takes over. And, look, by saying that, this is not a documentary. We took certain liberties"
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4018865

Neil deGrasse Tyson was unconvinced though: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4057280?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
 
Thought about it for a bit, and came to this - given that they are moving away from the station, the motion of the two stabilized at this point (he is not exerting accelerating force on her anymore), by detaching he would significantly reduce the mass of the collective body, thereby significantly lowering the reverse force needed for the loose ropes to reverse her momentum.
 
Sage said:
Thought about it for a bit, and came to this - given that they are moving away from the station, the motion of the two stabilized at this point (he is not exerting accelerating force on her anymore), by detaching he would significantly reduce the mass of the collective body, thereby significantly lowering the reverse force needed for the loose ropes to reverse her momentum.
Click to expand...
Either way, that scene just doesn't "work" in the movie. Everyone I saw it with had issues with it and it seems like some people here do as well.
It just doesn't work. Took me out of the movie.

And the fact that Cuarón is trying to explain it away isn't a good sign either.

Clooney drifted away from her and then the tether stopped him from going any further. He might have even started drifting back towards her after his momentum was altered with the jerking motion of being stopped/pulled back. It just had no feeling of "I better cut myself loose or she's dead!"

All that being said, I'm nitpicking. I really want to see this movie again, I liked it that much.
 
TheDingo said:
...I don't get why George Clooney's character had to detach ? Once his angular momentum had been equalized, he would not have any additional "drag" effect on Sandra Bullock. It's not like there is any "wind" in space. This was the only tiny minor thing that bugged me with an otherwise very believable simulation of space.
Click to expand...

The same principle would be in operation if the two were in water(*), and Sandra had a connection to the craft by means of a weak line. As she pulls on Clooney, she would require her foot to be fixed, other wise she would pull towards Clooney. If Clooney pulls, he would exert a force on Sandra, which the flimsy line could not withstand.

The craft was 'in motion', relative to the pair, and so, when Clooney disconnected, he 'remained' and she moved off with the craft.

Of course from the POV of the craft it would appear that Clooney was moving away...

Well that's how I interpreted it...

*There is of course some drag which the water would produce on the two, which would not be present in space... but the drag would be far, far less than say a firm footing on a 'fixed' object... like the ground...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top