- 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: Just watched Gravity on HBO
Posted on 7/12/14 at 11:23 pm to The_Hornet
Posted on 7/12/14 at 11:23 pm to The_Hornet
First off, I like both movies and for the same reason. I thought they were both visually stunning and the 3-D was flawless.
While the Cuaron fanatics find the effects in Gravity to be better, I disagree.
The 3-D really brought the whole planet to life so the effects were better in Avatar in my opinion.
HOWEVER..... The writing for Avatar was horrible. The cookie cutter evil people being evil for no reason other than Cameron wanted evil military people for his clearly political agenda, sucked. Same for evil corporation guy.
I wouldn't care about the political agenda if it was well written with properly motivated characters. Avatar was a joke. I find far more to hate from Avatar than Gravity. Heck, the only thing I dislike about Gravity is the silly hallucination scene. I always like The Clooney and have never had a problem with Bullock.
Gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avatar.
Having said that, If I had a chance to watch either again on the big screen, I would probably watch Avatar again, warts and all.
While the Cuaron fanatics find the effects in Gravity to be better, I disagree.
The 3-D really brought the whole planet to life so the effects were better in Avatar in my opinion.
HOWEVER..... The writing for Avatar was horrible. The cookie cutter evil people being evil for no reason other than Cameron wanted evil military people for his clearly political agenda, sucked. Same for evil corporation guy.
I wouldn't care about the political agenda if it was well written with properly motivated characters. Avatar was a joke. I find far more to hate from Avatar than Gravity. Heck, the only thing I dislike about Gravity is the silly hallucination scene. I always like The Clooney and have never had a problem with Bullock.
Gravity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avatar.
Having said that, If I had a chance to watch either again on the big screen, I would probably watch Avatar again, warts and all.
1
Posted on 7/12/14 at 11:23 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
but I really liked the message of the resiliency of life. If 2001 is about the resilience and vulnerability of humans
Thats fine
Its all the other stuff, esp the cliche dead kid
Posted on 7/12/14 at 11:56 pm to tracytiger
I saw it in my den and I liked it. I was hammered after a night downtown so that may have played into it but I enjoyed it.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:14 am to tracytiger
Effects & seamless shots were mindblowing. The score unlike anything I'd heard before (basically serving as sound effects) also mindblowing, to me anyway.
Clooney was stupid, his dialogue was even more stupid. Ed Harris as the mission control voice was conspicuous...and stupid. I thought Bullock was just fine, except when she had to interract with aformentioned stupid sh#t.
I think the film deserved it's technical accolades, but Jesus, they did their Hollywoody best to ruin it.
Clooney was stupid, his dialogue was even more stupid. Ed Harris as the mission control voice was conspicuous...and stupid. I thought Bullock was just fine, except when she had to interract with aformentioned stupid sh#t.
I think the film deserved it's technical accolades, but Jesus, they did their Hollywoody best to ruin it.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:15 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Exactly. If you watched it in the theater or IMAX in 3D and didn't like it, fine. But if you watch it on HBO on a couch on your 10 foot screen, a very familiar environment solely ruins the experience that Cuaron is trying to convey. The fact that you're in the comfort of your house makes sure you can't appreciate what Cuaron is trying to say. You can't experience extreme isolation on the chair you sit on 350 days out of the year. You've got that comfort of your living room. You don't have such comfort in a random theater. That's why I find anyone who watches it at home and says its a horrible movie laughable. As far as I'm concerned, they saw a completely different movie as I did and their opinion should be taken as such
All this tells me is that it's a shitty movie with pretty visuals. It's the modern day equivalent of 2001, which, while amazingly directed and visually stunning, is a shitty movie. I think Cuaron would be happy being compared to Kubrick, though.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:18 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
2001, which, while amazingly directed and visually stunning, is a shitty movie.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:20 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
All this tells me is that it's a shitty movie with pretty visuals. It's the modern day equivalent of 2001, which, while amazingly directed and visually stunning, is a shitty movie. I think Cuaron would be happy being compared to Kubrick, though.
But 2001 is largely considered to be one of the greatest films of all time. If I ever made a film that was even comparable to that film, then I'd consider my life as a success. Cuaron should as well.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:21 am to OMLandshark
quote:
It does everything it sets out to do.
So does Dorm Daze 2. Still a shitty movie. Entertaining for what it is, but just because it does what it sets out to do doesn't mean it's a great film.
Your entire argument take for granted that a movie is more than evoking a feeling. Without a story, why do I give a shite that a terrible actress is stuck 50,000 miles above earth?
Now look, I haven't seen the movie. So I'll grant you that you obviously have more of a leg to stand on than me, but I disagree with the entire premise of your argument.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:23 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:Dorm Daze 2 set out to make me laugh but did not.
So does Dorm Daze 2.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:25 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Freauxzen
Yeah, shitty is overstating it. 2001 is extremely complicated in its simplicity, but it gets out on a massive pedastal for exactly the same reason as Gravity (apparently), which is that it took technology and advanced what was possible in cinema visually to another level. That's great. I love that it did that and I will occasionally watch 2001 just to stare at it in awe, but it's lacking in a lot of places.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:25 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
So does Dorm Daze 2. Still a shitty movie. Entertaining for what it is, but just because it does what it sets out to do doesn't mean it's a great film.
What the frick is Dorm Daze 2? Is it a porn or a comedy? If the later, it couldn't have succeeded that much if I've never heard of it.
quote:
Now look, I haven't seen the movie.
Well then, there's no point in taking this argument any further.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:28 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Yeah, shitty is overstating it. 2001 is extremely complicated in its simplicity, but it gets out on a massive pedastal for exactly the same reason as Gravity (apparently), which is that it took technology and advanced what was possible in cinema visually to another level. That's great. I love that it did that and I will occasionally watch 2001 just to stare at it in awe, but it's lacking in a lot of places.
I'm still confused. People seem to put movies all into the same boxes.
I think there's as much of a difference between Gravity and Avatar as there is between Gravity and 2001.
Gravity and 2001 take place in space, that's about all they have in common.
The point of 2001 was not
quote:
that it took technology and advanced what was possible in cinema visually to another level.
It had a completely different take. 2001 just used new techniques, the film wasn't ABOUT those techniques. They were just that, techniques.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:31 am to tracytiger
It looked really nice on the 50" Samsung LED with all the lights off. The cinematography was great but the plot was lacking.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:33 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Well then, there's no point in taking this argument any further
Sure there is. You're invalidating people's opinions left and right because they didn't see it in IMAX 3D. The movie is magically better because of the viewing arena? That means the viewing experience is better, not the movie. The movie is the, apparently shitty, stream of bad acting in space.
And unlike 2001, whose plot is convoluted but interesting, Gravity's plot is apparently nonexistent. I'm just getting this from the other posters. Your responses have always been, "But the plot isn't important! It's the visuals! It's the sense of isolation! You wouldn't understand unless you saw it in IMAX 3D..." This tells me the movie is, as far as movies go, bad. You can't ignore an entire aspect of storytelling.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:35 am to TigerMyth36
quote:
HOWEVER..... The writing for Avatar was horrible. The cookie cutter evil people being evil for no reason other than Cameron wanted evil military people for his clearly political agenda, sucked. Same for evil corporation guy.
Going to have to stop you there. I'm libertarian. I'm all about capitalism. I had no problem with them using the corporate angle because really what the hell else were they going to use? Corporate greed can be a bitch. It wasn't like they were just there to grease one or two corporate fat cat's palms. They explicitly mentioned the shareholders at least once. Shareholders don't give a damn if you are evicting blue cat people billions of miles away as long as they get their pockets lined.
I don't mind a cookie cutter/cliche in 2 hour action/adventure movies because generally speaking, I'm not there for the story and/or characters. I'm there for the adventure. I'm there for the escape. Avatar did more of that in its first 20 odd minutes than Gravity did in the 80-85 minutes it had. There was just no intrigue for me. They gave me no reason at all to care about Sandra's survival. None. If it was Matt's story, then cool. Matt actually was likable before shite got real. Ryan was just there. They never even explained why she was there. I'm not even going further because frick that movie, frick its writing, frick its inconsistency, and frick all the hype it got and frick the hard drive that it was saved on during filming.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:40 am to Freauxzen
quote:
It had a completely different take. 2001 just used new techniques, the film wasn't ABOUT those techniques. They were just that, techniques.
Agreed. The more I think on 2001, the more I remember liking it, not just for visuals and editing (the jump cuts... Good lord), but because it told an interesting tale. So yeah, I'll retract that bit about your count fricking kids, I mean about 2001.
Perhaps Gravity does so as well. Never seen it. I just have a massive problem with proclaiming a movie's greatness and then relegating it to only when you experience it while standing on your head after downing a whole jar of pickle juice and having your face licked by your cat.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:47 am to OMLandshark
quote:
they could have made a movie that was much more effective at the stated goal OM describes had they written a better movie...namely one that was more minimalistic than what we saw (and lord no fricking sanda annoying arse fricking bullock whining all movie)
$275 million at the U.S. box office, over $715 million worldwide, 7 Academy Awards - including one for Best Director. I'm pretty sure they made a pretty effective film.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:49 am to The_Hornet
quote:
They never even explained why she was there.
Yeah they do. In the first 10 minutes of the film it is explained that she's a mission specialist who was brought in there to install her software on the Hubble Space Telescope. That's why she's drilling into the thing at the beginning of the movie.
This post was edited on 7/13/14 at 12:50 am
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:54 am to RollTide1987
quote:
$275 million at the U.S. box office, over $715 million worldwide, 7 Academy Awards - including one for Best Director. I'm pretty sure they made a pretty effective film.
Twilight made billions, Crash won Best Picture. Your argument is invalid.
Posted on 7/13/14 at 12:58 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Yeah they do. In the first 10 minutes of the film it is explained that she's a mission specialist who was brought in there to install her software on the Hubble Space Telescope. That's why she's drilling into the thing at the beginning of the movie.
Medical engineers design special software for telescopes now? Hmm. News to me. I'm pretty sure she told Matt that she was a doctor or surgeon back on earth.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News