- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Finally watched Gravity...
Posted on 3/3/14 at 2:10 pm to LoveThatMoney
Posted on 3/3/14 at 2:10 pm to LoveThatMoney
I think the movie is worth a watch just not worthy of praise other than the technical awards.
1
Posted on 3/3/14 at 2:22 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
How about you find the comment where I said the movie wasn't worth a watch.
I never said you didn't think it isn't worth a watch?
quote:
Once again, your over the top love of the movie to the point of being butthurt other people don't love it, makes no sense to me.
If you haven't noticed, I'm less concerned with "loving Gravity," than I am with holding movies to equal levels of standards, being consistent, and needlessly bashing a film.
quote:
I simply stated that the movie isn't deserving of the praise some of you feel compelled to heap on it.
And I simply stated that liking a film, and seeing its quality are two different things.
quote:
You continue to argue rewatchability but that continues to be nonsense. Almost ALL great films ARE rewatchable unless the subject matter is hard to watch.
You asking why it is important has NOTHING to do with the FACT that most great films ARE rewatchable.
This is a broad, extraordinary generalization. The problem with a film's rewatchability is that it's more subjective than it's meaning. You're telling me "I never want to watch it again!" But "I'll watch Avatar again instead," what does that even mean? Why? That's why rewatchability doesn't make sense. On many days, I'd probably want to watch Die Hard more than Casablanca or Wizard of Oz. Does that MAKE it a better film? Not really. Rewatching a film is a completely passive exercise in trying to reclaim something that can't happen again. Sure you "might uncover" layers, continue to pad your movie quoting abilities, or just laugh a little, but is rewatching tantamount to "experiencing a film," as it is meant to be seen? No. It doesn't mean ANYTHING, really.
What happens on a rewatch of a film that is so important to a judgement of its quality? There's still no answer to that question.
quote:
You asking why it is important has NOTHING to do with the FACT that most great films ARE rewatchable.
There are movies you might desire to rewatch, and there are movies you don't. This has no bearing on greatness. At all. Just repeating it over and over again doesn't prove the point. Does anyone really want to watch 12 Years a Slave again? How many people really enjoy The Searchers for the 2nd time? (It's hard enough to get people to watch it once). I mean, how do you measure "rewatchability?" You can't because it's personal. And because it's personal, it has absolutely no bearing on the quality of a movie.
quote:
Sorry but I don't find the experience so singularly great as to make it a once in a lifetime movie. Can't even fathom why you love it so much other than your blind love for the director.
And your framing of what I am arguing is just way off. Sure, I do like the film. Quite a bit actually, but I'm not trying to get anyone to like the film. We're not talking about preferences, we're talking about assessment of quality.
I'm really discussing the unfair claims like "I don't want to watch again, so it's a bad movie," or "It's only about the visuals, so it isn't a great movie." Holding films to similar and appropriate standards, not just personal feelings.
quote:
bullshite. It is a character study of Bullock learning to go on even with the loss she experienced.
Gravity is a character study? Huh?
Ryan Stone is clearly secondary in emphasis. Bullock's character and character arc serves as a reference point for the experience of the viewer and mirrors the plot of the film itself. It's meant to be self-referential so that the idea of life and death are reflected to the viewer as they experience that push and pull on screen.
If you think it's supposed to be a character study, then I see all of your points clearly. But that isn't taking the film for what it is.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 2:25 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
I think the movie is worth a watch just not worthy of praise other than the technical awards.
What praise is being heaped on it that's so unfair though to get you to interject about rewatchability?
Posted on 3/3/14 at 2:39 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
It wasn't really there to tell a story though
So now we're going to start nominating movies for Oscar's that don't even tell stories? Really?
Posted on 3/3/14 at 5:03 pm to drizztiger
Just watched it in my bedroom. (135" screen 1080p/3D)
The movie is so immersive and captivating. Space has never been depicted with such realism and complete involvement. I am very jaded when it comes to special effects movies, and I was saying WOW HTF did they DO that? over and over during this. I havent been this amazed by a movie in years. It is a masterpiece of filmmaking, imo.
HOWEVER:
While Bullock does a good job and is a very appealing screen presence, I cant help but think that a deeper actress would have elevated this material to a new level. If you had somebody that could really take it to a dark place and make it real (I'm thinking like Emily Watson or some really hardcore method actress), you could have an all-time classic. She is still Sandy the whole time, and cant really transcend her movie star persona. Clooney is Clooney, he is a good movie star and was an appropriate choice for that part.
AND the script was really not great. I can forgive some of the cheesy hollywood lines because of the situation, but again a real writer could have made this movie an immortal great.
Overall, the movie is a captivating masterpiece of cinema, it grabbed me hard from beginning to end, and I would absolutely watch it agin and marvel at the incredible immersive quality of the photography and effects. It has never been this easy to imagine actually being adrift in space.
The movie is so immersive and captivating. Space has never been depicted with such realism and complete involvement. I am very jaded when it comes to special effects movies, and I was saying WOW HTF did they DO that? over and over during this. I havent been this amazed by a movie in years. It is a masterpiece of filmmaking, imo.
HOWEVER:
While Bullock does a good job and is a very appealing screen presence, I cant help but think that a deeper actress would have elevated this material to a new level. If you had somebody that could really take it to a dark place and make it real (I'm thinking like Emily Watson or some really hardcore method actress), you could have an all-time classic. She is still Sandy the whole time, and cant really transcend her movie star persona. Clooney is Clooney, he is a good movie star and was an appropriate choice for that part.
AND the script was really not great. I can forgive some of the cheesy hollywood lines because of the situation, but again a real writer could have made this movie an immortal great.
Overall, the movie is a captivating masterpiece of cinema, it grabbed me hard from beginning to end, and I would absolutely watch it agin and marvel at the incredible immersive quality of the photography and effects. It has never been this easy to imagine actually being adrift in space.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 5:09 pm to VanRIch
quote:
So now we're going to start nominating movies for Oscar's that don't even tell stories? Really?
I mean, why not? As long as it does everything it set out to do, why shouldn't it be nominated for that. Granted, its really, really hard to pull this off well, but I think they managed.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 5:20 pm to OMLandshark
I'm not sure what the problem is, here or in the other thread.
Gravity and 12YaS are both good movies, imo. They're very different movies. Gravity won, and rightly so, the biggest "technical" awards and best director, recognizing Cuaron's vision and achievement. 12YaS won best adapted screenplay, supporting actress and best picture (that's not really a slight or insult to Gravity or Cuaron).
Gravity and 12YaS are both good movies, imo. They're very different movies. Gravity won, and rightly so, the biggest "technical" awards and best director, recognizing Cuaron's vision and achievement. 12YaS won best adapted screenplay, supporting actress and best picture (that's not really a slight or insult to Gravity or Cuaron).
Posted on 3/3/14 at 5:36 pm to VOR
quote:
Gravity and 12YaS are both good movies, imo. They're very different movies. Gravity won, and rightly so, the biggest "technical" awards and best director, recognizing Cuaron's vision and achievement. 12YaS won best adapted screenplay, supporting actress and best picture (that's not really a slight or insult to Gravity or Cuaron).
Yeah, I really liked 12 Years as well, even if Gravity was my favorite film of the year. It certainly deserved Best Supporting and Adapted Screenplay, so I don't find it bad at all that it got Best Picture.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 6:27 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
Movie was awesome in theaters. Beautiful and very suspenseful.
I will not watch it on my home system because it would ruin it. People who didn't see this in theaters really blew it.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 7:21 pm to VOR
quote:
I'm not sure what the problem is, here or in the other thread.
Well, it's about the reaction to Gravity:
quote:
See this tells me the movie is a failure. Not a total failure, but if your response to someone saying the movie is bad is that they had to see it in imax 3D to truly appreciate it, the movie earns at best a 50% grade out of 100. Ive said this before, but movies are more than pretty pictures strung together. Or they should be. If the story sucks, and the only retort is, "But it's so pretty!" the movie fails.
This idea about "only being visual effects," or "I can't watch it again," and arguing that the movie fails or is "bad."
I think that's a little ludicrous.
Gravity or not, saying that if ANY film only has one real effect in the end, that the movie is a failure. That's usually the point of a film, to communicate one idea or experience. Airplane! is built to make us laugh, that's it. The film itself, including the ridiculous story is there to serve that purpose. Halloween is built to scare. Again, completely built to serve that purpose. There isn't a grand journey, at least not a classic one. It's a very simple story.
Those complaints are holding Gravity to a standard, for some unknown reason, that aren't held any other movie, at least not this vehemently.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 7:36 pm to Freauxzen
First time I saw it was on a computer. Just saw it again on a standard flat screen. It earned it's Oscars and will stand up technically for a long, long time.
If I'd been hyped that it was the next Godfather I guess maybe I'd be on here railing against it too, but I just went with my friends opinions that I trust.
If I'd been hyped that it was the next Godfather I guess maybe I'd be on here railing against it too, but I just went with my friends opinions that I trust.
Posted on 3/3/14 at 9:18 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
This idea about "only being visual effects," or "I can't watch it again," and arguing that the movie fails or is "bad."
I think that's a little ludicrous.
Please don't conflate the two. There are plenty of movies I can't or won't watch again that i think are marvelous. And I haven't seen Gravity. I'm saying if what people are saying is true: that the story is bad or nonexistent, the movie isn't good. 2001 isn't a very good movie. It's visually stunning. It's a movie that took a giant leap into a new realm of visual effects, but so did star wars and blade runner. Both had significantly better stories. 2001, I'm sure like Gravity, is an experience, and technically unbelievable, but I don't consider it a great movie. It's very good, and I'm glad I've seen it, but I appreciate it only insofar as it's technical achievements. I'm assuming that's what Gravity is.
Is that a fair statement?
I think I still want to see it, but again, a movie shouldn't be able to simply ignore the storytelling aspect of movie making. If that's what it's done because it wasn't meant to do anything more, then that's lazy. If Avatar doesn't get a pass, neither should Gravity.
ETA:
quote:
Halloween is built to scare. Again, completely built to serve that purpose. There isn't a grand journey, at least not a classic one. It's a very simple story.
Halloween wasn't nominated for best picture was it?
This post was edited on 3/3/14 at 9:22 pm
Posted on 3/3/14 at 10:04 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Sweet fricking God, it goes on for 10 minutes???
It goes on for about 30 seconds. Close to 10 minutes, but only 9 short.
Just got back from seeing it in 3D, great experience and good film. Definitely glad I saw it in 3D and not in my living room, made it better for sure.
Posted on 3/4/14 at 9:17 am to drizztiger
i enjoyed 'gravity', but i agree about it not being too re-watchable. look, i get it, there are many great movies that aren't high on the re-watchable scale either, but that's usually because your head needs to be in the right place at the right time....i mean, 'schindler's list' is obviously a "better" film than something like 'the naked gun', but i've watched the latter much more because i don't have to be so emotionally invested in it. 'gravity', while worth seeing once, is mostly driven by eye candy & can be summed up in few words when explaining it to someone. no regrets seeing it, but how many times could i reasonably watch it before becoming bored to tears? my guess is "not many"....
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News