- 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 Review: 10/10
Posted on 10/4/13 at 6:14 pm to ColaTiger
Posted on 10/4/13 at 6:14 pm to ColaTiger
quote:
We all know about the general dislike of Sandra Bullock
I don't share this.
quote:
How they pulled off many of those shots, especially the opening 16 minute shot, is something to behold.
quote:
"How in the Hell did they pull that off?"
Seriously? You don't know that computers do 95 to 99 % of any complicated shot in Hollywood today - with a few exceptions (I'm sure Ridley actually built "sets" for Prometheus, but even he was leaning on CGI as far back as Gladiator)?
And, with all this praise, I assume the actual film looked better than the trailer, which, honestly looked like GTA: Outer Space Bitches!, with Bullock's face poorly digitized onto the flailing space suit.
quote:
From the moment I watched the Starchild appear on screen in 2001: A Space Odyssey at ripe age of 19, my movie watching life had changed forever.
Speaking of true film geniuses - how is it that Kubrick could make a better looking space movie in the late 1960s than they are able to, today? Or Ridley in the late 1970s?
Or hell, Little Ronnie Howard almost 20 years ago?
Physical sets filmed with a camera - rather than CGI processing which, as much as it has improved since Last Starfighter, still looks fake and cartooney - that's how.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)