Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

[alphabassettgrrl]

Ok, I stand corrected. Turns out the science errors aren't quite as egregious as I'd feared they would be.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...w_gravity.html

He does give spoilers, though, so be warned.

[Strangler Lewis]

I think "Gravity" has moments of novel and unexpected beauty, which is what one goes to the movies for.

[Alex]

The big problem (and I haven't read the science nitpicking spoilers) are, and I could easily be wrong:

Spoiler:

Items in the same orbit are going the same speed or they wouldn't be in the same orbit. So that cloud of debris shouldn't hit them multiple times.

In the real world Hubble, ISS, and the Chinese station would not be both in the same orbit as each other and within a hundred miles of each other.

Communications satellites are in geosynchronous orbit at 22,000 miles. ISS and and Hubble are in low earth orbit of just a couple hundred miles. The same "chain reaction" couldn't have taken out both them and communication satellites. And again it isn't like all the communication satellites are holding hands, one debris cloud up there wouldn't take them all out in a couple of minutes, especially if it then had to descend into a new orbit 21,500 miles lower two minutes after that.

Why was the Chinese station losing altitude?

But I've seen Cuaron quoted as essentially saying "I had a story I wanted to tell and it could be told with real world orbital placements. So I put everything in unreal orbits and told the story."

I'm ok with that.

[innerSpaceman]

I enjoyed it despite that lack of physical truth. On that particular note, more troubling to most people seems to be that Sandra Bullock's hair stays flatly in place in zero gravity environments when they took so much trouble to establish zero gravity with other effects.

I think movies can establish their own laws, even physical ones. So having her body be in Zero-G, but not her hair seems indeed a mistake. But the orbiting debris and chain-reaction failure of most com satellites is a movie McGuffin which I was happy to accept.

My problem with the film was how shallow it was - though it serves well its own purpose as a space disaster thriller told practically in real time. It was indeed thrilling, and absolutely stunningly beautiful. But it was empty of anything but the battle for survival against the elements and constantly upping ante.

So I enjoyed it, but it's not super memorable or impressive. Even the beauty results from it being practically an animated film. I think there are a few actual live-action shots in the third act, but the movie is basically a cartoon - and somehow I give less points to a gorgeous cartoon than I do to a gorgeous live-action film.

Alas then, I also have to give less points to the fantastical 17-minute shot that opens the movie. It's fantastically choreographed, but how hard is that in an animated film? Ironically, the director, Alfonso Cuaron, achieved some truly spectacular, exceedingly lengthy live-action shots in his last movie, Children of Men.

This all being said, I'm planning on paying to see Gravity again at the Chinese IMAX next weekend - and I can't even think of when I last paid to see a movie twice. But this film simply will not be a 10th the film it is once it's reduced to home video size.

So go see Gravity, see it Big, be entertained, and then be prepared to forget it.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I enjoyed it despite that lack of physical truth. On that particular note, more troubling to most people seems to be that Sandra Bullock's hair stays flatly in place in zero gravity environments when they took so much trouble to establish zero gravity with other effects.

I think movies can establish their own laws, even physical ones. So having her body be in Zero-G, but not her hair seems indeed a mistake. But the orbiting debris and chain-reaction failure of most com satellites is a movie McGuffin which I was happy to accept.

My problem with the film was how shallow it was - though it serves well its own purpose as a space disaster thriller told practically in real time. It was indeed thrilling, and absolutely stunningly beautiful. But it was empty of anything but the battle for survival against the elements and constantly upping ante.

So I enjoyed it, but it's not super memorable or impressive. Even the beauty results from it being practically an animated film. I think there are a few actual live-action shots in the third act, but the movie is basically a cartoon - and somehow I give less points to a gorgeous cartoon than I do to a gorgeous live-action film.

Alas then, I also have to give less points to the fantastical 17-minute shot that opens the movie. It's fantastically choreographed, but how hard is that in an animated film? Ironically, the director, Alfonso Cuaron, achieved some truly spectacular, exceedingly lengthy live-action shots in his last movie, Children of Men.

This all being said, I'm planning on paying to see Gravity again at the Chinese IMAX next weekend - and I can't even think of when I last paid to see a movie twice. But this film simply will not be a 10th the film it is once it's reduced to home video size.

So go see Gravity, see it Big, be entertained, and then be prepared to forget it.

Dude:

Spoiler:

The death scene where she's plugged into the Chinese cell phone call and decides to check out to the Chinese lullaby was sad, awesome and, well, unforgettable. I also thought the last Darwin fish image of her crawling out of the muck to pull herself upright was a powerful symbol of personal and planetary evolution. I haven't read what Cuaron meant to say, but there seems to be an equivocation about whether we're here by chance, design or a combination of both.

So there.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, that was the one scene in the movie, including the bit that took me by surprise but was supposedly a deadgiveaway to anyone with a pulse ... that was the only scene in the movie that seemed like there was any sort of anything to this movie. I really really liked that scene. I cannot expect a movie that was doing what this movie did to have any more scenes than that which made it seem more like a movie, but nonetheless I felt like it was a pretty empty exercise at the end - except for that one really good scene. Everything else was super tense rad fun beautifulness, but empty. Empty as space.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

We saw Gravity at the Chinese last night. We both loved it. It's worth the drive to see it in true IMAX (not this "IMAX Experience" BS).

If you have not been to the Chinese in a while, you'll be in for a surprise. The seats are no longer raked, it's stadium seating now. The interior has been spruced up well http://instagram.com/p/fRrIOQBT0K/# and the screen is gigantic and wonderful. http://instagram.com/p/fRrKyyBT0O/#

[Ghoulish Delight]

BACK UP






We?

[Alex]

Yes, it is a movie directed by Madonna.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Just a heterosexual friend. Sorry, didn't mean to imply otherwise.