- 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: "Gravity" Tomatometer Thread: 215 Reviews, 98% Fresh
Posted on 10/7/13 at 11:59 am to Civildawg
Posted on 10/7/13 at 11:59 am to Civildawg
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but to say there was no character development is to completely ignore Ryan Stone's character arc. She wasn't the same person at the end of the film as she was at the beginning.
Posted on 10/7/13 at 12:19 pm to RollTide1987
Are there spoilers in this thread?
If so, I don't want to read it before I see it.
If so, I don't want to read it before I see it.
Posted on 10/7/13 at 12:22 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but to say there was no character development is to completely ignore Ryan Stone's character arc. She wasn't the same person at the end of the film as she was at the beginning.
It was impossible to ignore. It was thrown in your face with a lack of subtlety that needs to be criticized. You didnt feel her development, you were told it happened and asked to be inspired by it. At the end of the day she wasnt a real person that one could feel a connection with. It was not natural or organic.
In the end i enjoyed the film experience, but to act like this was a great movie is, in my opinion, ludicrous.
Posted on 10/7/13 at 12:30 pm to Hester Carries
But there was character development. Even if you think it was done in a bad way, it was there.
Posted on 10/7/13 at 12:37 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
But there was character development. Even if you think it was done in a bad way, it was there.
Meh
Posted on 10/7/13 at 8:35 pm to Fun Bunch
I thought it was phenomenal from the imagery to the acting.
If Bullock does not get an Academy Award for this, it will be a travesty.
If Bullock does not get an Academy Award for this, it will be a travesty.
Posted on 10/7/13 at 11:09 pm to JS87
As promised, my retort to Gravity being the most realistic space movie of all time and being realistic in general. SPOILERS of course.
From a guy on another board who works for NASA:
From Time:
Time
And a mixed bag review from a current astronaut She praised some of the hardwork behind the scenes and what they got right, but for every "right" there is at least one or two wrongs.
So yeah to say it was wholly realistic is bullshite. To say it was even the most realistic mainstream space movie is also bullshite (Apollo 13 holla).
From a guy on another board who works for NASA:
quote:
After the initial "event" that conveniently destroys the Shuttle that Clooney and Bullock were on while repairing HST, they "seek refuge on the International Space Station, which is conveniently located nearby." One word problem: "inclination" HST is at 28.5 degrees and ISS is at 51.6 degrees. You just don't make those kind of inclination changes in orbit. It's not done. But somehow, there you go. Oh... and then Sandy pilots *TWO OTHER SPACECRAFT* from Russian and China as she just casually pops over to a mythical Chinese space station. Because, you know... they're all universal in their flight controls, all astronauts are cross-trained for just such an emergency, and ... oh yeah... they're all just floating around right next to each other in the same orbital inclination. There's that one word again... "inclination". The Chinese orbit at 42.8 degrees.
From Time:
Time
quote:
NASA doesn’t care if you have a hot body or not. Tall, short, lumpy, lithe—as long as you’re fit and fall within a reasonable height and weight range, you clear at least one simple hurdle to becoming an astronaut. But NASA isn’t Hollywood. And so, in the new—and extraordinary—movie Gravity, when Sandra Bullock comes inside after a spacewalk, she shucks her pressure suit and floats about in a crop-top and boxer briefs, perfectly toned, perfectly lovely, zero-g eye candy. In truth, what an astronaut returning from what NASA calls extavehicular activity (EVA) would have on under her pressure suit would be what’s known as a Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment, a full-body, crazily complex bit of space finery that has about 300 ft. (91 m) of fashionable plastic tubing running through it. She’d also be wearing an adult diaper and would be wringing with sweat. Doesn’t matter if you’re Bullock, Penelope Cruz or Nicole Kidman, you would not be looking your best.
quote:
First of all, the Hubble orbits at an inclination of 28.5º, which maximizes the time it spends passing over the American mainland on its various trips around the planet. The shuttle, in most cases, stays at that angle too. Russian satellites, however, orbit at higher inclinations, for the same reason—to keep them as close as possible to the Motherland. Junk from a Russian pigeon-shoot might cross the shuttle’s orbit on some of its passes, but it would not happen right away—and certainly not every hour and a half. After the shuttle is destroyed, the surviving astronauts seek refuge on the International Space Station, which is conveniently located nearby. But the ISS orbits at 51.6º—a concession to the Russians when we built the station, since their Soyuz spacecraft regularly ferry crews up and down. Shuttles fly at that high inclination when they’re visiting the ISS, but they wouldn’t be anywhere remotely in the neighborhood if they were servicing Hubble.
quote:
What’s more, a satellite-demolishing chain reaction would never happen in the first place. In 2008, the U.S. shot down one of its own dead satellites—ostensibly to prevent it from spinning out of control, but probably as a military riposte to China, which had pulled off a similar bit of cosmic marksmanship the year before. The technology needed to clean up your own dead satellites is pretty much identical to what it would take to shoot down another country’s very much alive ones, and China was no doubt signaling that it had the wherewithal. So do we, we signaled back, so do we. In neither case was there a risk of anything like what occurred in Gravity, and while you could probably write a computer model that would show how such a thing could happen, it’s wildly improbable.
quote:
Then there was all the spacewalking. When the movie opens, we see Bullock and another crewmember hard at work on the Hubble and the shuttle, while George Clooney, wearing a Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU, essentially a space jet pack) zips around them, having a grand time as he listens to country music and wisecracks. It’s the only bit of the movie that looks slightly silly—and it also grossly overstates the speed and maneuverability of the MMU. What’s more, NASA would never countenance such cosmic silliness because the MMU’s fuel was limited and could easily run out—something that in fact happens in the movie. When disaster strikes and Clooney is adrift, it’s fair to wonder if his character wishes he’d cooled it a bit on the earlier horseplay. Bullock, who is not wearing an MMU, finds herself in similar free-floating peril. While spacewalking astronauts wear tethers, they are also equipped with a small backpack called SAFER (Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue) which would allow them to maneuver back to the safety of the ship if the tether should break. Bullock’s does, but she has no SAFER. Later, when she improvises, using a space station fire extinguisher as a sort of handheld jetpack—well, suffice to say that actually maneuvering with such a thing would be far less successful than it is on screen.
And a mixed bag review from a current astronaut She praised some of the hardwork behind the scenes and what they got right, but for every "right" there is at least one or two wrongs.
So yeah to say it was wholly realistic is bullshite. To say it was even the most realistic mainstream space movie is also bullshite (Apollo 13 holla).
Posted on 10/8/13 at 12:03 am to DURANTULA
honeslty, i don't give a fvck how "real" the movie was. that's nitpicking. the movie was freaking awesome. I was amazed and very entertained.
to say this movie was not an unreal movie is like calling the girl on the cover of maxim an OT6 because her big toe is fat.
This post was edited on 10/8/13 at 12:06 am
Posted on 10/8/13 at 12:07 am to DURANTULA
Posted on 10/8/13 at 7:17 am to DURANTULA
quote:
So yeah to say it was wholly realistic is bullshite. To say it was even the most realistic mainstream space movie is also bullshite (Apollo 13 holla).
1) I never said the movie was wholly realistic. It obviously took liberties to serve the story. I mentioned the orbital planes of the ISS, Hubble, and Chinese Space Station in a couple of my earlier posts. I knew all of that was BS while I was watching the movie and didn't need some astronaut to tell me. But you know what? The film wouldn't have worked if Cuaron hadn't taken those liberties.
2) The same thing for the Russian and Chinese escape pods. She would have been trained to use the Russian escape pod in the case of emergency. Clooney's character, upon Bullock telling him she didn't know how to operate the Chinese escape pod, tells her the systems are very similar. Most definitely not true, but the film provides an explanation for how she is able to pilot the Chinese escape pod to the surface of the Earth at the end of the film.
3) Your Time article, written by the co-author of Lost Moon: The Story of Apollo 13, is very complimentary of the film's realism:
quote:
It’s really beside the point to mention any scientific inaccuracies in Gravity since the movie is so gripping, so jaw-dropping, so visually, gobsmackingly good that it seems churlish to pay attention to much else. What’s more, Gravity, which does get much more right than it gets wrong, is not Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff—movies that had to hew close to history because they were based on real events.
quote:
All the same, science is science and facts are facts and when a movie purports to traffic in both, it’s only fair to point out the blunders—none of which were howlers in this case
So while he says there are problems with the film's realism from time to time, he admits most of his gripes are just nitpicks and not major, major blunders. And after he points out all of the inaccuracies, your Time article writer concludes that the film is awesome:
quote:
But you know what? So what? The shuttle, space station and spacesuits are painstakingly recreated; the physics of moving about in space—thrusts requiring counterthrusts, spins requiring counterspins, the hideous reality that if you do go spiraling off into the void your rotation never, never stops—are all simulated beautifully, scarily and accurately. Gravity will wind you up and wring you out as only the best thrillers do.
I never said the film was 100% realistic. Nor has anyone else. I said the film was more realistic than most and you tried to prove me wrong by comparing its realism to Armageddon. I proved you wrong by pointing you to the writings of Tom Jones and Buzz Aldrin and you tried to counter with some astronauts and space enthusiasts of your own. And while they did offer criticisms on the film's realism, they were the SAME criticisms Aldrin and Jones brought forth in their reviews. And, at the end of the criticisms of the film in Time, the author of the article goes on to praise how much it got right as well as praised the movie itself - making you look bad in the process.
In conclusion, the film is not Armageddon.
This post was edited on 10/8/13 at 7:18 am
Posted on 10/8/13 at 10:02 am to RollTide1987
Went last night and saw it, even went against my firm stance against 3D.
Like someone else said, I don't care how real it was, that was a badass movie. If my man Neil can enjoy it so can everyone else
Posted on 10/8/13 at 10:08 am to RollTide1987
quote:
In conclusion, the film is not Armageddon.
Also, I agree with this statement 100%
Posted on 10/8/13 at 10:50 am to vengeanceofrain
quote:
the movie was freaking awesome. I was amazed and very entertained.
This. I saw it last night and was just blown away by the cinematography and special effects as well as the film's ability to make you feel like you were the one marooned in space. Stated simply, it was an unbelievable visual and sensory experience.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 12:41 pm to Jwodie
Oh Gravity is not Armageddon. Armageddon had a first, second, and third act with better character development and that's not saying that Armageddon was a great movie either. If Michael Bay can slap the traditional 3 acts in his movie and have characters that develop, then why the hell couldn't someone like Alfonso Cauron - who this board apparently thinks is the new Scorsese - do it as well?
Gravity is essentially this year's Prometheus. Except I had more expectations for the latter and was ultimately more disappointed by it.
Gravity is essentially this year's Prometheus. Except I had more expectations for the latter and was ultimately more disappointed by it.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 1:49 pm to DURANTULA
quote:
If Michael Bay can slap the traditional 3 acts in his movie and have characters that develop, then why the hell couldn't someone like Alfonso Cauron - who this board apparently thinks is the new Scorsese - do it as well?
There's so much that is ridiculous about this I don't know where to begin.
Gravity wasn't intended to have traditional "Acts" or to have traditional character development in any way.
It is exactly as its intended: a survival tale that unfolds very linear and in a "real time" sort of way. There is no let up, no flash backs, nothing. You're intended to only be in the moment with Bullock. That's it.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 2:37 pm to DURANTULA
You are well on your way to become the worst poster on every board.
Congrats
Congrats
Posted on 10/8/13 at 2:46 pm to Fun Bunch
Saw this last night.
Breathtaking. Mesmerizing. Brilliant.
Believe the hype. I normally don't, so I was still a bit reserved walking in, but Gravity is an experience unlike any other.
Breathtaking. Mesmerizing. Brilliant.
Believe the hype. I normally don't, so I was still a bit reserved walking in, but Gravity is an experience unlike any other.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 2:49 pm to DURANTULA
quote:
Oh Gravity is not Armageddon. Armageddon had a first, second, and third act with better character development and that's not saying that Armageddon was a great movie either.
You must really want to hate this movie if you missed Cuaron's very clear act boundaries.
quote:
If Michael Bay can slap the traditional 3 acts in his movie and have characters
I think this was your problem. The movie is too intimate for you. It's literally about 1 singular. The scope was fairly small, focused on one single character learning to live again.
quote:
then why the hell couldn't someone like Alfonso Cauron - who this board apparently thinks is the new Scorsese - do it as well?
Link?
quote:
Gravity is essentially this year's Prometheus. Except I had more expectations for the latter and was ultimately more disappointed by it.
Yeah Prometheus was half terrible, I'll give you that.
Posted on 10/8/13 at 2:50 pm to DURANTULA
So a movie has to have a tradition 3 act structure to be any good now?
One of my favorite movies, United 93, lacked a 3 act structure as well as character development and the film didn't suffer at all.
One of my favorite movies, United 93, lacked a 3 act structure as well as character development and the film didn't suffer at all.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News