- 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 3:27 pm to Freauxzen
Posted on 10/14/13 at 3:27 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Just because Miracle at St. Anna takes place in World War II, with setting, clothes, etc. intact, doesn't make it a great movie
Aah, but I didn't claim that. I said it accomplishes what it set out to do. Which OM is saying is a major component of Gravity's greatness.
quote:
?? Just because you answer yes doesn't mean you gave a good reason. So explain
I've touched on it. The "great" movies mentioned in this thread that apparently have little rewatchability have pretty good reasons for that. Seeing Jesus in graphic detailed being nailed to a cross, seeing Jews in concentration camps, seeing people's lives spiral into a hopeless pit of depression and despair, etc. Those movies may be great, but they leave you with a feeling that you might not want to feel again, and understandably so. So now we have Gravity. Supposedly a great, defining movie, yet it apparently isn't very rewatchable. Why not? Because the effects of earth and outer space can't be captured as well from your home TV as they can on the big screen. Umm..I don't think that's a valid reason. It may not make the movie AS enjoyable as the theater, but what movie isn't better in theaters? The fact that Gravity's plot, dialogue, character arcs, etc. are all so weak and fall so flat that essentially the only "great" thing going for the movie is that it's effects are outstanding on the big screen doesn't really scream "great movie" to me.
quote:
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?
Nothing! Nothing at all, and I realize that that's part of what is making the movie get so much buzz. But IMO, for a movie to be an all-timer, it should be enjoyed at home on a rainy day as well as in the theater, yet Gravity seems to only have the 3D mojo going for it.
quote:
we should, as always, have a definitive definition of what is great then we can judge whether or not something is great
I agree, and "great" is obviously extremely objective and can vary widely. But this isn't just getting hype like "this is a great movie, one of the best I've seen recently", it's being talked about as "redefining" the genre and people being nominated for academy awards. I'm not a film buff, but if Sandra's acting is the best of the year then this has to be one of the weaker years in some time.
quote:
I don't see how anyone can sit in that theater and say, "Meh."
I, as well as others, was blown away by the visuals. They were incredible, I won't deny that. But leaving the theater, that was the ONLY noteworthy aspect of the film to me. We know practically nothing about these characters, so have no reason to get connected to them. And what acting did take place was largely forgettable. Clooney had some comedic relief in his limited time. Sandra didn't give a performance any better or worse than most lead actors. And for God's sakes the barking.
I'm not sitting here trying to be that guy and say "gravity sucks! worst movie ever!" because I acknowledge it has it's positives and I'm glad I did see it in the theater. But I have absolutely no desire to see it again, and think the only think remarkable about it at all was the effects. I just don't think that makes a great movie.
3
Posted on 10/14/13 at 3:46 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Aah, but I didn't claim that. I said it accomplishes what it set out to do. Which OM is saying is a major component of Gravity's greatness.
And I agree with OML on this, but at a much finer point. But you said MOST films achieve what they set out to do, that's what I'm arguing against. I don't think most do. I think many come close, and great ones do 100% of the time, the intent of the movie, that IS important. And Gravity was laser focused on that.
Probably Agree to disagree here.
quote:
I've touched on it. The "great" movies mentioned in this thread that apparently have little rewatchability have pretty good reasons for that. Seeing Jesus in graphic detailed being nailed to a cross, seeing Jews in concentration camps, seeing people's lives spiral into a hopeless pit of depression and despair, etc. Those movies may be great, but they leave you with a feeling that you might not want to feel again, and understandably so.
Ok so IF a movie isn't rewatchable AND Great, then it can only be because the movie has negative feelings associated to it? What abut length of time? Fanny and Alexander is a pretty great film, not sure I want to sit down again for 6 hours and watch it though. What if a film's humor is just so much a part of its time it's hard to get that back. See Duck Soup. Plenty of people would probably never crack a smile now, OR want to watch a silent film ever again. Also a great movie. Right? So it isn't just negative feelings that hamper rewatachability of great films.
quote:
So now we have Gravity. Supposedly a great, defining movie, yet it apparently isn't very rewatchable. Why not? Because the effects of earth and outer space can't be captured as well from your home TV as they can on the big screen. Umm..I don't think that's a valid reason.
Why not?
quote:
It may not make the movie AS enjoyable as the theater, but what movie isn't better in theaters?
There are few films that are "better" in the theater, imo. 90% of them are meaningless blockbusters. The theater experience adds very little to a character-driven drama. Is Casablanca really served by viewing it on a bigger screen?
That IS the unique thing about the movie, it's one of the few that get the viewing experience 100% right. Maybe we should value it for that exactly. And maybe that's what people mean when they say it is "redefining" film. It's making the theater experience NECESSARY. That's a good thing. Not a bad thing.
quote:
The fact that Gravity's plot, dialogue, character arcs, etc. are all so weak and fall so flat that essentially the only "great" thing going for the movie is that it's effects are outstanding on the big screen doesn't really scream "great movie" to me.
I still don't see the not great character argument. The theme of Stone's character was laid out in scene 1 when she didn't let go of the device. That central piece of her character that kept showing up over and over again was in the very first scene and resolved. The movie wasn't complex, but I don't think complexity=great either.
quote:
But IMO, for a movie to be an all-timer, it should be enjoyed at home on a rainy day as well as in the theater, yet Gravity seems to only have the 3D mojo going for it.
So I'm going to curl up on a rainy day, all warm and fuzzy, make some tea and enjoy Birth of a Nation and all its racism??
And "enjoyment," I think this is really the key to the rewatchability folks they haven't really caught on yet. Rather than being a primary feature of a film, rewatchability fits more as a piece of the idea of enjoyment and the role IT plays into greatness.
quote:
I agree, and "great" is obviously extremely objective and can vary widely. But this isn't just getting hype like "this is a great movie, one of the best I've seen recently", it's being talked about as "redefining" the genre and people being nominated for academy awards. I'm not a film buff, but if Sandra's acting is the best of the year then this has to be one of the weaker years in some time.
Redefining what genre? And Bullock's performance, while not game changing, fits the mold of an Oscar nominated movie. You shouldn't take her being nominated as some crime against humanity. The Oscars aren't about the "best historically-relevant moments" in film.
quote:
But leaving the theater, that was the ONLY noteworthy aspect of the film to me. We know practically nothing about these characters, so have no reason to get connected to them. And what acting did take place was largely forgettable. Clooney had some comedic relief in his limited time. Sandra didn't give a performance any better or worse than most lead actors. And for God's sakes the barking.
All opinion. I found her well defined if you pick up the little pieces.
quote:
Sandra didn't give a performance any better or worse than most lead actors.
90% of the time an actor or actress gets an Oscar for the very same kind of performance. Nothing wrong with a nomination or win unless 5 completely mindblowing performances come out in the next 4 months. And even then.
Trust me, I don't think in 10 years, if we are still watching this movie in some new 3D glasses form, no one will be talking about Bullock's acting performance. That's just media making a big deal of things.
quote:
I'm not sitting here trying to be that guy and say "gravity sucks! worst movie ever!" because I acknowledge it has it's positives and I'm glad I did see it in the theater. But I have absolutely no desire to see it again, and think the only think remarkable about it at all was the effects. I just don't think that makes a great movie.
But this wasn't the discussion.
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 10/14/13 at 4:05 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
And Gravity was laser focused on that
Gravity set out to make us feel isolated in outer space with virtually no hope, and it did. So what? A movie accomplishing it's goal should be expected.
quote:
IF a movie isn't rewatchable AND Great, then it can only be because the movie has negative feelings associated to it?
I don't know if I'd use the word feelings, but there would be negatives. In your examples, length of time is damn sure a negative as far as a rewatch, and Duck Soup's time period can be considered a notch in the negative column due to it being outdated. We can agree it's great, but not all that rewatchable, but there is a reason. Gravity is only 90 minutes and just came out, so neither of those apply.
quote:
That IS the unique thing about the movie, it's one of the few that get the viewing experience 100% right. Maybe we should value it for that exactly. And maybe that's what people mean when they say it is "redefining" film. It's making the theater experience NECESSARY.
Ok, I'll buy in with you on this. But when I hear people extoll this movie and lavish it with praise, they talk about the movie itself. If someone wants to claim it's one fo the greatest "movie going experiences" then fine, but you can say the same thing about Avatar or any number of movies that have stunning visual effects and a story that puts you in the situations with the actors. But my whole point this whole time is just HOW great is a movie really if it almost exclusively has to be appreciate through one medium? I've never heard someone say "man you HAVE to see this movie, it's one of the best I've ever seen! Oh but you better do it by Sunday because then it won't be in IMAX anymore and it won't be worth it".
quote:
I still don't see the not great character argument.
I'm not saying I want her to deliver some heroic speech to the nation or rescue babies from a burning building, but I just felt like it was...bland. Plain. Just kinda there. Sitting in the theater I was right there with her wondering what she'd do next to survive, but I never thought "she NAILED that line" or anything like that. There are hundreds of actresses who could have delivered that same performance.
quote:
The theme of Stone's character was laid out in scene 1 when she didn't let go of the device
Or it could just be she's so careless that she would refuse orders and put her and her partner's lives in immediate danger
quote:
So I'm going to curl up on a rainy day, all warm and fuzzy, make some tea and enjoy Birth of a Nation and all its racism??
I lol'd at this, but it goes back to the negativity point. Racism is an ugly thing and despite the movie being a good one you might not want to dive into that subject. But at least if you got a wild hair you could, and take the same experience from it that you did the first time you saw it. It wouldn't be "I want to watch this movie today...but it's not in 3D so I might as well not even bother"
I'm sorry I didn't answer all your quotes but I'm at work and I'm tired of being in this chair so I'm leaving the office now
Posted on 10/14/13 at 4:13 pm to Freauxzen
I def think to be the best of all time there has to be some rewatchability factor in there. Who says, "That was the best movie I've ever seen! I never want to watch it again."
On the other hand, there are plenty of crap movies I watch religiously (Independence Day is watched EVERY time I see it on!)
I can't really think of any movie that I would consider great that I haven't watched several times, including Requiem.
On the other hand, there are plenty of crap movies I watch religiously (Independence Day is watched EVERY time I see it on!)
I can't really think of any movie that I would consider great that I haven't watched several times, including Requiem.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 4:32 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Gravity set out to make us feel isolated in outer space with virtually no hope, and it did. So what? A movie accomplishing it's goal should be expected.
I don't think it's a binary, yes or no, question. Poor films can still hit the mark, vaguely. But if the emotions never come through, if the scenes don't convey the right message, then maybe not so much. Great movies peel away everything else and get to the heart of the experience, that's rare.
Good movies, may hit the mark, may not. They may accomplish the goal, but they just might do it well enough to be average.
Accomplishing a totality of vision is rare in film, that's, I think, one of the reasons Gravity struck a chord so well. It isn't something we can quantify, but it's there.
quote:
I don't know if I'd use the word feelings, but there would be negatives. In your examples, length of time is damn sure a negative as far as a rewatch, and Duck Soup's time period can be considered a notch in the negative column due to it being outdated. We can agree it's great, but not all that rewatchable, but there is a reason. Gravity is only 90 minutes and just came out, so neither of those apply.
Time is a dimension, so yeah, length of time=depth of viewing field as well.
quote:
Ok, I'll buy in with you on this. But when I hear people extoll this movie and lavish it with praise, they talk about the movie itself. If someone wants to claim it's one fo the greatest "movie going experiences" then fine, but you can say the same thing about Avatar or any number of movies that have stunning visual effects and a story that puts you in the situations with the actors.
But again you equate "just doing something," to automatic success in art achievement. At least that what it seems like you're doing.
Avatar is a debatable success, but Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is not. Stunning Visual Effects. There's a story there, sort of. Situations with "actors,". Sure. But not a good experience, or a good film.
quote:
But my whole point this whole time is just HOW great is a movie really if it almost exclusively has to be appreciate through one medium?
The quality of Crime and Punishment as a novel has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that its been movies and TV series/miniseries. And because it itself is great as a novel, doesn't mean any other medium version is great.
quote:
I've never heard someone say "man you HAVE to see this movie, it's one of the best I've ever seen! Oh but you better do it by Sunday because then it won't be in IMAX anymore and it won't be worth it".
"You have to see Romeo and Juliet with X and Y on stage. They are only in it for one more week. If you don't see by then, it just won't be worth it."
There are plenty of forms of art that require a specific viewing at a specific time for it to be worthwhile.
quote:
I'm not saying I want her to deliver some heroic speech to the nation or rescue babies from a burning building, but I just felt like it was...bland. Plain. Just kinda there. Sitting in the theater I was right there with her wondering what she'd do next to survive, but I never thought "she NAILED that line" or anything like that. There are hundreds of actresses who could have delivered that same performance.
I'm not going to disagree. But again, that's roughly 99.8% of all film roles. There are very very few truly original characters and truly original actors. Nothing wrong with that.
quote:
Or it could just be she's so careless that she would refuse orders and put her and her partner's lives in immediate danger
Eh, sure. But still, it was a theme that carried on, so it was meant to be a part of that.
quote:
I lol'd at this, but it goes back to the negativity point. Racism is an ugly thing and despite the movie being a good one you might not want to dive into that subject. But at least if you got a wild hair you could, and take the same experience from it that you did the first time you saw it. It wouldn't be "I want to watch this movie today...but it's not in 3D so I might as well not even bother"
I just don't get the 3D being so much different from length of time, or negativity, or heck positivity. There are some comedies I avoid watching again strictly because comedies have a very hard time still being funny over and over again. Some do it quite well, but some just don't. And comedy, much more so than other genres, is very much about the moment.
quote:
I'm sorry I didn't answer all your quotes but I'm at work and I'm tired of being in this chair so I'm leaving the office now
Good. And then answer later...
Posted on 10/14/13 at 4:56 pm to Freauxzen
Ok I'm home.
I like this discussion, but throughout all the go arounds I think I can basically sum up my thoughts as follows:
A truly GREAT movie should be one that isn't marked with an asterisk, and is only GREAT watching it one particular way as compared to another.
Duck Soup, Gone With the Wind, Schindler's List, Requiem, Passion, etc..all those movies have some negatives attached to them that may hurt their rewatchability. However, what if you had 6 hours to kill and didn't mind watching a movie for all of it? What if you felt like diving into a dark movie? What if you didn't care the humor in the movie doesn't translate today and wanted to watch it anyway? Despite all the little things that may deter people from watching those movies again and again, if one were to choose to watch them anyway, their satisfaction level watching those at home would not be lessened simply because it wasn't a)in 3D or b)on a massive screen.
And that's the biggest point that we keep going back to with Gravity. We can talk about the EXPERIENCE being unique and a grand slam, and that's fine. I'm not talking about the theater going experience, I'm talking about the 90 minute film itself. For a movie to be GREAT, it shouldn't have to be required to watch it one particular way. War and Peace would be just as good of a book whether paperback, hardbound, or on a tablet because the words and the story is still the same. Your Romeo and Juliet example isn't necessarily applicable, an apples to apples comparison would be seeing it on Broadway compared to seeing it in Atlanta, but with the same actors. Sure one may offer a better overall experience, but you still enjoy the play itself in Atlanta just the same. Strip away the stunning visuals that can only be offered in particular theaters, and Gravity is just a basic, run of the mill movie that offers little in the way of rewatchability.
Despite the endless debates on here about Usual Suspects, even knowing the ending, the story itself is still entertaining enough to where I (and many many others) still enjoy watching it multiple times. Gravity doesn't have that going for it, IMO. The overarching theme of this discussion seems to be it must be seen on the big screen to be fully enjoyed, and I just don't see how a film can be an all time great with such a massive limiting factor attached to it.
I like this discussion, but throughout all the go arounds I think I can basically sum up my thoughts as follows:
A truly GREAT movie should be one that isn't marked with an asterisk, and is only GREAT watching it one particular way as compared to another.
Duck Soup, Gone With the Wind, Schindler's List, Requiem, Passion, etc..all those movies have some negatives attached to them that may hurt their rewatchability. However, what if you had 6 hours to kill and didn't mind watching a movie for all of it? What if you felt like diving into a dark movie? What if you didn't care the humor in the movie doesn't translate today and wanted to watch it anyway? Despite all the little things that may deter people from watching those movies again and again, if one were to choose to watch them anyway, their satisfaction level watching those at home would not be lessened simply because it wasn't a)in 3D or b)on a massive screen.
And that's the biggest point that we keep going back to with Gravity. We can talk about the EXPERIENCE being unique and a grand slam, and that's fine. I'm not talking about the theater going experience, I'm talking about the 90 minute film itself. For a movie to be GREAT, it shouldn't have to be required to watch it one particular way. War and Peace would be just as good of a book whether paperback, hardbound, or on a tablet because the words and the story is still the same. Your Romeo and Juliet example isn't necessarily applicable, an apples to apples comparison would be seeing it on Broadway compared to seeing it in Atlanta, but with the same actors. Sure one may offer a better overall experience, but you still enjoy the play itself in Atlanta just the same. Strip away the stunning visuals that can only be offered in particular theaters, and Gravity is just a basic, run of the mill movie that offers little in the way of rewatchability.
Despite the endless debates on here about Usual Suspects, even knowing the ending, the story itself is still entertaining enough to where I (and many many others) still enjoy watching it multiple times. Gravity doesn't have that going for it, IMO. The overarching theme of this discussion seems to be it must be seen on the big screen to be fully enjoyed, and I just don't see how a film can be an all time great with such a massive limiting factor attached to it.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 5:33 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Duck Soup, Gone With the Wind, Schindler's List, Requiem, Passion, etc..all those movies have some negatives attached to them that may hurt their rewatchability. However, what if you had 6 hours to kill and didn't mind watching a movie for all of it? What if you felt like diving into a dark movie? What if you didn't care the humor in the movie doesn't translate today and wanted to watch it anyway? Despite all the little things that may deter people from watching those movies again and again, if one were to choose to watch them anyway, their satisfaction level watching those at home would not be lessened simply because it wasn't a)in 3D or b)on a massive screen.
So for a movie to be great you must be able to watch it on a home TV and receive the same experience. Is that correct?
quote:
And that's the biggest point that we keep going back to with Gravity. We can talk about the EXPERIENCE being unique and a grand slam, and that's fine. I'm not talking about the theater going experience, I'm talking about the 90 minute film itself. For a movie to be GREAT, it shouldn't have to be required to watch it one particular way.
And I'm saying EVEN IF something can only be viewed one particular way, that doesn't mean it ISN'T great.
quote:
War and Peace would be just as good of a book whether paperback, hardbound, or on a tablet because the words and the story is still the same. Your Romeo and Juliet example isn't necessarily applicable, an apples to apples comparison would be seeing it on Broadway compared to seeing it in Atlanta, but with the same actors. Sure one may offer a better overall experience, but you still enjoy the play itself in Atlanta just the same.
What if the sound and actors are terrible though? Do people miss out if they've never seen Sarah Brightman-performed Phantom of the Opera? Until someone usurps her, quite possibly.
quote:
Strip away the stunning visuals that can only be offered in particular theaters, and Gravity is just a basic, run of the mill movie that offers little in the way of rewatchability.
Strip away the very soul of the film, which is, in essence, the very nature of film itself. If films were made for television screens then why do we release them in theaters?
quote:
We can talk about the EXPERIENCE being unique and a grand slam,
And this makes the movie a grand slam. Because art is about experience, even if it is one of a kind.
Because:
quote:
Despite the endless debates on here about Usual Suspects, even knowing the ending, the story itself is still entertaining enough to where I (and many many others) still enjoy watching it multiple times.
No successive viewing of the Usual Suspects is the same as the first. Never again will you have the same feeling at the end, because of THAT particular experience, as you did the first time. That's a once in a lifetime experience, and why the movie is so good. That PARTICULAR experience doesn't hold up after that.
Bryan Singer didn't make US to be watched 12 times, he made it to punch you in the gut once.
You can NEVER get that first viewing back, nor can you never get the experience Singer intended ever again. No matter how many times you watch it.
quote:
Gravity doesn't have that going for it, IMO.
But film isn't about rewatchability. It has an incredible one-shot (and maybe a 10 year anniversary super 4D release in the future). But that's it. It captured the theater experience in full better than most movies.
quote:
The overarching theme of this discussion seems to be it must be seen on the big screen to be fully enjoyed, and I just don't see how a film can be an all time great with such a massive limiting factor attached to it.
First, I never actually agreed with that. But even if that premise is accepted, there's still no definitive evidence that art must be viewed multiple times to be considered quality. I'd actually say that a movie that must be viewed multiple times, or even CAN be viewed multiple times and receive the same experience, is maybe a fault.
Take away this argument, and take away this ridiculous idea that seeing the film again is important, one question:
Was there anything like seeing Gravity in IMAX 3D? Was it a unique and excellent movie-going experience? Even if you never saw it again, was it more than worth it?
If it wasn't a good film, that's fine, we can debate that in the other thread. But then you must not have liked it the first time you saw it.
BUT if the movie was:
quote:
unique and a grand slam
That's pretty big praise, regardless if the second viewing is not so much. Or if a viewing at home is weaker than the first.
If it was unique and a grand slam for that one single time you saw it, then it's worth it. Then it's good art.
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 5:45 pm
Posted on 10/14/13 at 7:49 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
Seeing Jesus in graphic detailed being nailed to a cross
Who said Passion of the Christ is a great movie, anyway? It's pornographic tripe.
As for some of the others mentioned, I've seen "Schindler's List" at least four times, "Requiem for a Dream" three times, "Gone With the Wind" at least four times (my high school English teacher saw it about sixty times at the old Robert E. Lee, theater).
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 8:09 pm
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:11 pm to Rex
It is interesting to see certain people making arguments for this film being great. Those same people destroyed Avatar for the same reasons people are talking Gravity down.
Visual feast without a compelling plot.
Maybe not as bad as Ferngully in Space. Open Water is space.
Most of the knuckleheads in full hyperbole mode are the same people who attack 3-D for being gimmicky yet I keep seeing that this MUST be seen in IMAX 3-D.
Dear lord, I hope you at least mean a real IMAX theater and not some normal theater with the watered down tiny normal screen that still costs $5.00 more just because they stuck IMAX on the name.
Really is interesting. You could probably juxtapose several Avatar posts with Gravity posts and see certain people making the same point / counterpoint.
Having said all that, I still haven't seen it so I can't post an opinion of the movie. Just find the over the top hyperbole about a movie you all admit probably won't be seen more than once, to be probably more entertaining than the actually movie. Heck, if this post could be seen in 3-D on an Imax screen, I am sure of it.
Visual feast without a compelling plot.
Maybe not as bad as Ferngully in Space. Open Water is space.
Most of the knuckleheads in full hyperbole mode are the same people who attack 3-D for being gimmicky yet I keep seeing that this MUST be seen in IMAX 3-D.
Dear lord, I hope you at least mean a real IMAX theater and not some normal theater with the watered down tiny normal screen that still costs $5.00 more just because they stuck IMAX on the name.
Really is interesting. You could probably juxtapose several Avatar posts with Gravity posts and see certain people making the same point / counterpoint.
Having said all that, I still haven't seen it so I can't post an opinion of the movie. Just find the over the top hyperbole about a movie you all admit probably won't be seen more than once, to be probably more entertaining than the actually movie. Heck, if this post could be seen in 3-D on an Imax screen, I am sure of it.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:26 pm to TigerMyth36
There's a difference in Avatar and Gravity on their goals and the level of manipulation. Avatar's goal was to start a new industry, not to tell a story. It's goal was to manipulate audiences to buy as much 3-D tickets and items as possible. It's no coincidence 3-D TV and DVD was released right after Avatar was released. They were looking for a flagship product in order for them to make billions. It was carefully calculated to appeal to as many people as possible, and a movie that tries to appease everyone typically appeases only the dumb.
Gravity though wanted to share an experience with you. I don't think Cuaron put much thought at all if any on how it would translate to home media. He wanted you to experience it on the biggest screen possible and fully immerse you in it.
This was not a film necessarily about the characters, but putting you in that situation and making you literally feel trapped in it. Avatar completely failed on that part IMO, but Gravity thrived in it. It was ball bustingly tense and I honestly thought when she cemented herself to her death, I thought that was it, and I was ok with that. It wasn't like Avatar where I could predict every single plot point to an absolute T.
That's my two cents at least on the difference between them. Just because both films largely rely on special effects and 3D doesn't mean they're that similar.
Gravity though wanted to share an experience with you. I don't think Cuaron put much thought at all if any on how it would translate to home media. He wanted you to experience it on the biggest screen possible and fully immerse you in it.
This was not a film necessarily about the characters, but putting you in that situation and making you literally feel trapped in it. Avatar completely failed on that part IMO, but Gravity thrived in it. It was ball bustingly tense and I honestly thought when she cemented herself to her death, I thought that was it, and I was ok with that. It wasn't like Avatar where I could predict every single plot point to an absolute T.
That's my two cents at least on the difference between them. Just because both films largely rely on special effects and 3D doesn't mean they're that similar.
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:26 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
It is interesting to see certain people making arguments for this film being great. Those same people destroyed Avatar for the same reasons people are talking Gravity down.
The two comparisons end with the visuals. Both Avatar and Gravity were shot in 3-D and took years to develop. There is no doubt that both films look gorgeous. But this is where they stop being similar. Avatar's plot sucked because it had been recycled from Dances With Wolves and Pocahontas, with a little FernGully mixed in for good measure. The agenda Cameron was going for in that movie was just eye-roll inducing.
Gravity, while far from an original plot, is very suspenseful and keeps you on the edge of your seat. That's something I just didn't get from Avatar.
quote:
Most of the knuckleheads in full hyperbole mode are the same people who attack 3-D for being gimmicky yet I keep seeing that this MUST be seen in IMAX 3-D.
There's a difference between a film being shot in 2-D - then converted to 3-D to make an extra buck - and a film shot entirely in 3-D. I don't mind seeing a film shot in 3-D. It may be gimmicky but at the same time it's a welcome change of pace. Films shot in 2-D, then converted to 3-D, are usually piss poor conversions because it was done quickly so as to be in time to make an extra $100 million come release.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:27 pm to Rex
quote:
Who said Passion of the Christ is a great movie, anyway? It's pornographic tripe.
I've only see it once, and as I said earlier in the thread, I have no desire to rewatch it. That said, it succeeds exactly what it set out to do. That is my primary judgement on whether or not it's a good or great movie.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:29 pm to NewIberiaHaircut
quote:
Yes. Would you rate any other art GOAT if you could only view it/hear it once with enjoyment?
Maybe a novel, if you just want to keep reading new stuff cause you'll probably never have enough time to read all the great ones.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 9:53 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
Having said all that, I still haven't seen it so I can't post an opinion of the movie.
Ummm, exactly.
quote:
It is interesting to see certain people making arguments for this film being great. Those same people destroyed Avatar for the same reasons people are talking Gravity down.
Visual feast without a compelling plot.
Maybe not as bad as Ferngully in Space. Open Water is space.
Yeah I was/am very critical of Avatar. Because Avatar pretends to be much more than it is. It's scope is much larger, it's intent is some grand heroic journey across worlds. And it sucks.
Gravity's intent is far different. Different films, completely, regardless of the focus on special effects.
quote:
Most of the knuckleheads in full hyperbole mode are the same people who attack 3-D for being gimmicky yet I keep seeing that this MUST be seen in IMAX 3-D.
Because it's really the first film to deserve 3D.
That's why.
quote:
Really is interesting. You could probably juxtapose several Avatar posts with Gravity posts and see certain people making the same point / counterpoint.
Naaaa, you really can't different films. Different intentions. Different scopes. Different outcomes.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:07 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Because it's really the first film to deserve 3D.
That's why.
Honestly, it's the first film I've ever felt this about. With Avatar, it was nice, but I didn't think it was necessary by any means. TRON Legacy had great 3-D, but it too doesn't seem completely necessary. The only film before this I think had fairly necessary 3D was How to Train Your Dragon, but even that it was only for a few scenes, and not the entire movie. Think the only scene that wasn't greatly helped by 3D in Gravity was the howling scene, and that's still a fine scene on it's own terms (people are blowing it out of proportion on it being bad).
Posted on 10/14/13 at 10:29 pm to OMLandshark
I saw Gravity Sunday and left reminded of Avatar. i was blown away by Avatar due to the immersion and the use of 3d depth of field and Gravity was the same way. Outside of that, I think Gravity doesn't have much going for it and I think it will show when it hits DVD and BluRay when people watch it and just see the story.
Personally, I would still say that Avatar beats Gravity for better 3d movie to see in a theater.
Personally, I would still say that Avatar beats Gravity for better 3d movie to see in a theater.
Posted on 10/14/13 at 11:37 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Both Avatar and Gravity were shot in 3-D and took years to develop.
Gravity's 3D is so good almost everyone thinks it was shot that way. Nope, they just did an excellent 2D to 3D conversion.
Comic-Con: Sandra Bullock and Director Alfonso Cuarón Talk GRAVITY
quote:
We started converting to 3D, three and a half years ago, to go through pains to make sure that it was the closest thing to native 3D.
This post was edited on 10/14/13 at 11:44 pm
Posted on 10/15/13 at 12:39 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Avatar's goal was to start a new industry, not to tell a story.
Yes which explains why James Cameron has written three sequels, put out several tie in novels, and has numerous licensing deals (including one with WDW that will add Avatar Land to the Animal Kingdom).
But yeah you're right, all he wanted to do was create new 3D tech. That's all. He didn't want to create his own film universe like Star Wars, POTC, or Harry Potter. Nope. Just wanted the new 3D tech. Also explains why he was going into production in 1998 on the film too.
Do you ever get tired of having your arse handed to you by me?
Posted on 10/15/13 at 11:06 am to DURANTULA
So still no legitimate critique on why rewatchability is important from the supporters?
Posted on 10/15/13 at 11:24 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
I've touched on it. The "great" movies mentioned in this thread that apparently have little rewatchability have pretty good reasons for that. Seeing Jesus in graphic detailed being nailed to a cross, seeing Jews in concentration camps, seeing people's lives spiral into a hopeless pit of depression and despair, etc. Those movies may be great, but they leave you with a feeling that you might not want to feel again, and understandably so
I've bowed out of the debate because I've yet to see gravity. But I do like this post. I've been able to watch Schindlers List > 1. But this is solid reasoning for me bc that's the exact reason I'll probably never watch Requiem again. Or Blue Velvet for the super psychotic factor.
I personally don't feel a movie can be great If I can't rewatch it. Good, or even really good. But not great.
But on the flip side I completely understand how a movie that you never care to see again can still be viewed as great. Somebody could have the same view of rewatchability with Requiem I do, but consider it great, not just good.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News