- 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: Is Gravity the highest rated movie on IMDB that nobody will watch again?
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:49 am to iwyLSUiwy
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:49 am to iwyLSUiwy
I saw avatar in 3d imax on opening night. was blown away at all the pretty visual stuff and thought it worth the expensive ticket. I haven't watched it all the way through since then, knowing it wouldn't hold up in my living room with a pretty bland plot.
I haven't seen gravity yet but am expecting to feel the same.
I haven't seen gravity yet but am expecting to feel the same.
0
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:49 am to iwyLSUiwy
i was just joking 
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:53 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Exactly. And as much as I love literature, I don't re-read every great book all over again. Maybe like 10% of books do I read twice. And that's probably a high estimate.
A book is a completely different monster though. Much more time, effort, dedication goes in to it. You can be as lazy as you want to be and watch any movie in a couple of hours. Eating, pissing, talk on the phone during it, text, etc. and still enjoy it in a few hours.
A decent book takes days, work in between, sleep, full attention. Much harder to re-read something. And if you're going to rededicate that amount of time to something, you're like most people, you want it to be something new. Heck, with a movie, you can watch it one week and it be the very next movie you watch next week. That would never happen with a book.
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 11:56 am
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:55 am to Carson123987
O.
DON'T EVER JOKE WITH ME AGAIN
DON'T EVER JOKE WITH ME AGAIN
Posted on 10/14/13 at 12:00 pm to iwyLSUiwy
OK
Posted on 10/14/13 at 12:25 pm to Carson123987
Saw it IMAX 3D. Really wish we would have seen Capt Phillips instead.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 12:26 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Does a movie have to be re-watchable to be considered best of all-time?
Yes
Posted on 10/14/13 at 12:40 pm to Freauxzen
quote:Of course not.
Does a movie have to be re-watchable to be considered best of all-time?
Posted on 10/14/13 at 1:11 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Cuaron's goal was to make it feel like you personally were stranded out in space. He succeeded. The film does exactly what it set out to do
What does that have to do with it's rewatchability? Cast Away makes you feel like you're stranded on a deserted island, but nobody is hailing it as an all time great..and I would much rather rewatch cast away than gravity.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 1:14 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Cast Away makes you feel like you're stranded on a deserted island, but nobody is hailing it as an all time great
I'd watch Cast Away five times before I'd watch Gravity again.... better story, better acting, greater sense of isolation... almost everything about Cast Away is better.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 1:28 pm to Rex
quote:
better story, better acting, greater sense of isolation... almost everything about Cast Away is better
But it didn't "redefine the cinematic experience" like gravity did.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 1:53 pm to WG_Dawg
I've never seen cast away.
Cool little fact for y'all. Tell your pals.
Cool little fact for y'all. Tell your pals.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 2:07 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
But it didn't "redefine the cinematic experience" like gravity did.
Well, people can experience Cast Away for themselves really by just going to go camp on an abandoned island. Sure not to that extreme of course (unless your nuts), but it's not the same type of isolation and tension that Gravity gives you.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 2:09 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
The film does exactly what it set out to do
This has a lot more to do with "great movie," than
quote:
rewatchability?
And no one has given a good argument at all as to why rewatchability is important.
quote:
Cast Away makes you feel like you're stranded on a deserted island, but nobody is hailing it as an all time great
Because it was generally an ok film. Not great, but good.
quote:
and I would much rather rewatch cast away than gravity.
Opinion. Doesn't matter in terms of the question. See Baloo's comment.
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 10/14/13 at 2:11 pm to OMLandshark
So your argument that gravity is awesome and rewatchable hinges on the fact that one cannot replicate being in space?
Posted on 10/14/13 at 2:27 pm to Rex
most movies. even while enjoyable are one trippers IMO
Posted on 10/14/13 at 2:30 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
A book is a completely different monster though. Much more time, effort, dedication goes in to it. You can be as lazy as you want to be and watch any movie in a couple of hours. Eating, pissing, talk on the phone during it, text, etc. and still enjoy it in a few hours.
But the argument is that rewatchability is intrinsic in "Great" art. So it must be held true for all art.
Now, to your point, while true, the "experience" of the art is not to be pissing and texting while watching it. I'm sure Directors would be kind of furious if you would equate that with quietly watching and absorbing a film.
quote:
A decent book takes days, work in between, sleep, full attention. Much harder to re-read something. And if you're going to rededicate that amount of time to something, you're like most people, you want it to be something new. Heck, with a movie, you can watch it one week and it be the very next movie you watch next week. That would never happen with a book.
Depends on the book. Or the piece of poetry. Or the painting. Or the song. Or album. Or TV Show. Etc. But does it have anything to do with "Greatness?"
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 10/14/13 at 2:31 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
So your argument that gravity is awesome and rewatchable hinges on the fact that one cannot replicate being in space?
It's that it's the next closest thing to being there. Maybe you didn't, but I completely forgot about being in a theater and was holding my breath and clenching my a-hole during much of it. Honestly takes alot for me to get truly immersed in a film, but this did it.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 2:42 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
This has a lot more to do with "great movie," t
Tons of movies accomplish what they set out to do. Whether it's take you to another era, tell a story of a main character, paint a picture of life in a certain place, make you laugh, entertain you, whatever the case may be.
quote:
And no one has given a good argument at all as to why rewatchability is important
If a movie is being hailed as an all time great, shouldn't there be a high level of rewatchability? And yes, I realize there have been plenty of near consensus "classics" that people don't want to watch again, but the reasons for that have to do with the anguish, feelings, whatever that they make you feel. Not because the special effects aren't as good if you aren't watching it in IMAX 3D.
quote:
Because it was generally an ok film. Not great, but good
I agree with that, but I also think the same thing about Gravity. Yet it's hailed as something great and spectacular.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 2:55 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Tons of movies accomplish what they set out to do. Whether it's take you to another era, tell a story of a main character, paint a picture of life in a certain place, make you laugh, entertain you, whatever the case may be.
Just because Miracle at St. Anna takes place in World War II, with setting, clothes, etc. intact, doesn't make it a great movie. You're being a little liberal with a movie doing this successfully.
quote:
If a movie is being hailed as an all time great, shouldn't there be a high level of rewatchability?
?? Just because you answer yes doesn't mean you gave a good reason. So explain.
quote:
And yes, I realize there have been plenty of near consensus "classics" that people don't want to watch again, but the reasons for that have to do with the anguish, feelings, whatever that they make you feel. Not because the special effects aren't as good if you aren't watching it in IMAX 3D.
And maybe making use of 3D can be put in the same category. What's wrong with that as being something unique about the movie?
quote:
I agree with that, but I also think the same thing about Gravity. Yet it's hailed as something great and spectacular.
First I would answer, don't listen to the hyperbole, especially in terms of this question.
Second, I would say, we should, as always, have a definitive definition of what is great then we can judge whether or not something is great. But we can't say Gravity ISN'T great when it obviously has had some sort of cultural impact, success, etc. Those are things Castaway really didn't do.
quote:
Yet it's hailed as something great and spectacular.
I would also say, separate the people saying things like "spectacular EXPERIENCE," and things like "a narrative as intricate as the Godfather." Yes, plenty of people are saying the former. I don't know anyone saying the latter.
Additionally, I think its importance or greatness takes time to judge. If it has as much of an impact on film than something like Jurassic Park, then it might be worthy of that title. And that will take time. But just as saying it is an all-time great is a rush to judgement now, so is saying it isn't. It has an immense amount of potential to get there.
I don't see how anyone can sit in that theater and say, "Meh." I mention Jurassic Park because as a pure film experience, it's somewhere in that ballpark. There has been nothing like it on screen. Does it have staying power? Does it have potential to influence film? We'll find out.
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 2:58 pm
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News