GRAVITY -- directed by Alfonso Cuaron

Saw it tonight and absolutely loved it.

I was just caught up in the entire experience. Those shots, that camera movement, that movie.

I was into the entire time.

By the end I was kind of bored with Sandra Bullock just get beaten down again and again.

I felt so bad that by the end part of me wished it would just end with her drowning in the hatch.

This was the best thing I've seen all year though. Absolutely awesome.

Oh man, when you see the 3D Earth through the hole where that one guys face was!!!! Oh man!!!
 
Since we're discussing the end of the movie...

IMHO, Gravity could be made into the most epic comedy of all time with just one change. As Sandra Bullock's character is standing on the edge of the lake in the middle of the wilderness of who-knows-where, triumphant in her will to survive, a bear suddenly strikes from behind a patch of long grass and mauls her to death. I mean, you're sitting through the whole movie, watching one disaster after another, expecting her to possibly die at any moment...just not via angry bear attack. And yet, that ending would make a weird kind of sense.

Or am I just nuts here?
 
Or if we get that chinese guy with the baby and dog she picked up on the radio walking up and pulling out a gun with a silencer and shooting her, then radioing in 'target neutralized"
 
Wesley Byram said:
Since we're discussing the end of the movie...

IMHO, Gravity could be made into the most epic comedy of all time with just one change. As Sandra Bullock's character is standing on the edge of the lake in the middle of the wilderness of who-knows-where, triumphant in her will to survive, a bear suddenly strikes from behind a patch of long grass and mauls her to death. I mean, you're sitting through the whole movie, watching one disaster after another, expecting her to possibly die at any moment...just not via angry bear attack. And yet, that ending would make a weird kind of sense.

Or am I just nuts here?
Click to expand...

The original ending of The Astronaut Farmer (about as bad of a movie as it sounds), as written by Mark and Michael Polish, was that Billy Bob Thornton's character comes back from space and crash lands in the middle of butt-f--k Indonesia, and is greeted by a cannibalistic tribe of natives rather than the hero's welcome he gets when he lands back in the good ol' US of A in the filmed ending.

Honestly, I don't think it'd have been much of an improvement...
 
Yes the tether scene bothered me quite a bit. He was there, stationary, and yet something we still pulling him, like some imaginary force. Very strange scene and really pulled me out as well.

I also knew they were taking some liberties, but hoping from one station to another, AND the hubble, satellites, ISS and chinese space station being all lined up together on the same orbit and so close to each other was really stretching my belief. To have them on the same orbit is like building your house on a highway. You just don't do it. But I kept telling myself "if they did it realistic there wouldn't be a story."

One question though, how long would it take for you to freeze over in space? I know there's no convection so realistically you would only freeze via radiation which would take time. However how long would it be? Would heat loss via evaporation be enough to freeze the crew of the explorer in such a short amount of time? Not sure how accurate that was. I've just always been unhappy with how Hollywood has represented the vacuum of space, with people 'flash freezing' or exploding.


Besides that, man what a ride! The second time the debris field came around I was holding my breath!
 
Jon Starr said:
One question though, how long would it take for you to freeze over in space? I know there's no convection so realistically you would only freeze via radiation which would take time. However how long would it be? Would heat loss via evaporation be enough to freeze the crew of the explorer in such a short amount of time? Not sure how accurate that was. I've just always been unhappy with how Hollywood has represented the vacuum of space, with people 'flash freezing' or exploding.
Click to expand...

I don't know how long it would take exactly, but it would likely be a matter of hours for a dead body to freeze in space, and that's assuming that the body is shaded from the sun. Vaccum is an excellent insulator, so the body would retain its heat for a while. As you point out, heat would only be lost through black-body radiation, which takes some time.
 
Yes the tether scene bothered me quite a bit. He was there, stationary, and yet something we still pulling him, like some imaginary force. Very strange scene and really pulled me out as well.
Click to expand...

Hey yeah my wife said that ... 'anyone who gets a hold of George Clooney and lets him go is an idiot'

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
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.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I'm trying to skip ahead without catching any spoilers. This is all I need to know. -Cheers.
 
Wesley Byram said:
I don't know how long it would take exactly, but it would likely be a matter of hours for a dead body to freeze in space, and that's assuming that the body is shaded from the sun. Vaccum is an excellent insulator, so the body would retain its heat for a while. As you point out, heat would only be lost through black-body radiation, which takes some time.
Click to expand...

Which is what I thought. I've heard it before, that it would take hours if not longer for someone to freeze in space.

That's the thing about this film. Reading more about it, they got A LOT right, but they also got A LOT wrong. At times it was a liberty taken (like how everything is lined up perfectly), but then other things just don't add up. It could have been just as dramatic if they most of it right. I'm a big space guy. I'm no astrophysicist, but I love learning about it. I'm just tired how the 'reality' of space exploration can be 'bent or changed' just for dramatic purposes, because of lack of knowledge on the subject by the general populace. I mean I akin the ISS, Hubble, and Russian satellite being on the same orbital like building your house on a highway. Movies are a great way to inform and teach people how living in space really is.

Don't get me wrong I LOVE the film, but it's not a perfect film for me just because of that.

Does anyone know how they filmed the zero-g scenes in the space station? It was very convincing and smooth. I wonder if it's just a lot of wires, or if they did something similar to what was done for Inception? I know Joseph Gordon-Levitz had to really work out a lot to be able to make the zero-g look convincing, and Bullock seemed very fit.

EDIT: Here's a great article, and a great quote from it

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

"You may say: so what? They bent the rules. Big deal. But to astronomers, physicists, and astronauts who know these things, it is as crazy to us as two characters getting into a car and driving to the moon. On a single tank of gas. Even still, I’m willing to put up with it, because without it there is no movie, and GRAVITY is a great movie. It is a suspension of disbelief, not much different with accepting that Superman can fly..."
 
Last edited:
Jon Starr said:
EDIT: Here's a great article, and a great quote from it

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

"You may say: so what? They bent the rules. Big deal. But to astronomers, physicists, and astronauts who know these things, it is as crazy to us as two characters getting into a car and driving to the moon. On a single tank of gas. Even still, I’m willing to put up with it, because without it there is no movie, and GRAVITY is a great movie. It is a suspension of disbelief, not much different with accepting that Superman can fly..."
Click to expand...

I've worked in the 'computer biz' for over 30 years. In most films that depict some form of 'computer espionage'... they are hopelessly 'wrong'.

The reason for it... most computer espionage is hopelessly boring...

For example... in the film "Mission Impossible"(1996) we have Tom Cruise breaking into a 'highly secure' facility, via air ducts, etc... On the other hand, we have recently seen in the news the 'information' that Snowden 'collected' over months if not years of tedious 'mouse clicking' and keyboard thumping.

Which makes more 'film sense'... slo mo mouse clicks, or some joker dangling from an air vent droping sweat on a 'sensitive' floor... with the computer operator at the door punching in the access code.

In the present case, there are many real clips of 'space station action', which would put most people to sleep in minutes, or empty theaters, were the film makers to make 'accuracy' over 'film sense'.
 
I hesitate throwing this viewpoint into the ring, but here goes. Yes, visually stunning. Groundbreaking. This thread has focused on that and whether or not actions and reactions of mass and velocity in space were violated in the script. But let's talk drama for a moment. My problem with Clooney sacrificing himself when he did is that it took the drama of the relationship between him and Sandra completely out of the film.

SPOILER:

When Clooney made it back to the Chinese spaceship, I was thrilled. Of course, my first reaction was technical (like much of the discussion on this thread), and I quickly thought "that's impossible". But from a dramatic standpoint, I cheered. Thank heavens, the relationship continues. No more Sandra simply talking to herself, pushing buttons and reading manuals. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with him sacrificing himself, but so soon in the film??!! Can you imagine the film Titanic with Leonardo DiCaprio being shot by the David Warner character half way through that film? Yes, the 3D in Gravity was fantastic and the images of space overwhelming, but the drama of the plot would have been better served if Clooney exited the film after helping Sandra into the Chinese escape pod in the end, which only holds one person (or some other such plot device), IMHO. Even Castaway (referenced earlier in this thread) realized and solved that problem. At least they gave Hanks a ball with a face drawn on it to talk to. They endowed that ball with a personality and I just about cried when it slowly floated away from Hank's reach (at the END of the film).
 
Jon Starr said:
Which is what I thought. I've heard it before, that it would take hours if not longer for someone to freeze in space.

That's the thing about this film. Reading more about it, they got A LOT right, but they also got A LOT wrong. At times it was a liberty taken (like how everything is lined up perfectly), but then other things just don't add up. It could have been just as dramatic if they most of it right. I'm a big space guy. I'm no astrophysicist, but I love learning about it. I'm just tired how the 'reality' of space exploration can be 'bent or changed' just for dramatic purposes, because of lack of knowledge on the subject by the general populace. I mean I akin the ISS, Hubble, and Russian satellite being on the same orbital like building your house on a highway. Movies are a great way to inform and teach people how living in space really is.

Don't get me wrong I LOVE the film, but it's not a perfect film for me just because of that.

Does anyone know how they filmed the zero-g scenes in the space station? It was very convincing and smooth. I wonder if it's just a lot of wires, or if they did something similar to what was done for Inception? I know Joseph Gordon-Levitz had to really work out a lot to be able to make the zero-g look convincing, and Bullock seemed very fit.

EDIT: Here's a great article, and a great quote from it

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

"You may say: so what? They bent the rules. Big deal. But to astronomers, physicists, and astronauts who know these things, it is as crazy to us as two characters getting into a car and driving to the moon. On a single tank of gas. Even still, I’m willing to put up with it, because without it there is no movie, and GRAVITY is a great movie. It is a suspension of disbelief, not much different with accepting that Superman can fly..."
Click to expand...

Vacuum is only an insulator if it is a contained barrier between two temp gradients. It doesn't insulate if you are in the vacuum at -400 degrees.
 
Razz16mm said:
Vacuum is only an insulator if it is a contained barrier between two temp gradients. It doesn't insulate if you are in the vacuum at -400 degrees.
Click to expand...

How do you measure the temperature of a vacuum? Temperature derives from the movement of molecules, and there are none in a vacuum by definition. (In reality, outer space is not a perfect vacuum, but it's close enough for this discussion. )

As I understand it, a warm object looses heat from two main processes: conduction and black-body radiation. Conduction is why you will immediately feel colder when you go for a swim in 70 degree F water versus just standing in 70 degree air, even though the temperature of each medium is the same. The water is denser and a better conductor and, thus, carries away heat faster than the air does. Outer space is even more rarified, so the effect of conduction is effectively nill. That leaves only black body radiation, which is much slower.

As to what would happen to an unprotected person in space: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html

You do not explode and your blood does not boil because of the containing effect of your skin and circulatory system. You do not instantly freeze because, although the space environment is typically very cold, heat does not transfer away from a body quickly. Loss of consciousness occurs only after the body has depleted the supply of oxygen in the blood. If your skin is exposed to direct sunlight without any protection from its intense ultraviolet radiation, you can get a very bad sunburn.
Click to expand...
 
Razz16mm said:
Vacuum is only an insulator if it is a contained barrier between two temp gradients. It doesn't insulate if you are in the vacuum at -400 degrees.
Click to expand...

Two temp gradients? I'm not sure I understand what that has to do with a vacuum being an insulator? Perhaps you're talking about the word 'insulator'? Either way, the properties of a vacuum don't change if it's acting as an insulator (between two temp gradients) or not.

A temperature is the movement of molecules, energy in molecules. If a vacuum has no molecules then there's no way for you to lose that heat, aside from radiation. The only reason it's recorded as almost absolute zero on the kelvin scale is because there are no molecules, therefore no movement. Without cold air (slow moving molecules) for your skin to come in contact with, there's no way to transfer the energy (convection). It's not absolute zero because of the background radiation in space (some suspect comes from the big bang), but it's also a vacuum.

Here's a bit of a clue, that it would in fact take a long time to freeze:

If we put a thermometer in darkest space, with absolutely nothing around, it would first have to cool off. This might take a very very long time. Once it cooled off, it would read 2.7 Kelvin. This is because of the "3 degree microwave background radiation." No matter where you go, you cannot escape it -- it is always there.
Click to expand...

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/379068main_Temperature_of_Space.pdf
 
KyleProhaska said:
Of all people to partially thank for GRAVITY...Brett Ratner?????
Click to expand...



Well he teamed up with James Packer! Serious Oz money there, he just spent 50 mill building a house here, then divorced his 2nd wife.
I worked on shows for his late father Kerry Packer, what a wild ride that was.

Cheers.
 
Absolutely amazing direction, it's gotta get the Oscar.

By a long shot Bullock's deepest acting (her only other A Tine to Killl?), she was great. Hope she does more movies that challenge her.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top