Movie "Gravity" - seen it yet?

J

Jim Logajan

En-Route
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
4,024
Display Name
Display name:
.
I really don't get out to see movies at the theaters much anymore. But I just saw some ads for "Gravity" with George Clooney and Sandra Bulluck; when I read the basic plot line, the first thing it reminded me of was a short story written decades ago by Ray Bradbury. Same initial concept. Bradbury's story was memorable to me because of its ending. I couldn't remember its title, but I did remember the last lines spoken in the story, and that was all it took for me to locate the title online: "Kaleidoscope".

Now, in my quick check to see if anyone else had the same thought, I find that they sure have, such as this article, which tries to point out why they are different without giving much away (I think the author does a reasonable job avoiding spoilers since I still only know generalities of the film, not how it resolves - but it might reveal too much even for some):

http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/...radburys-kaleidoscope-not-the-same-story.html

The trailers on Youtube manage to convey a lot of emotional intensity that has me intrigued. I have yet to see a movie in 3D at a theater. Wondering if I should go see it or wait till it is available for watching at home.
 
I think today is opening day?

I really wasn't sure what to make of it from the trailer, but it's getting 4 stars from amost all the critics.


At least one of the critics said this movie would be a waste to see on a home screen.

Edit - just read Kaleidoscope. Good story, thanks.
 
Last edited:
Read an article about the production of the movie. From that, it appears the creators did quite a bit to give you a real sense of being in outer space.

This might be one movie worth the IMax admission cost.
 
I work in the movie business in Hollywood, and this is some of the best work we've ever done. I can tell you that the effects...the 3D...the story...are all a thrill, something you'll remember for a lifetime. If you follow the critic ratings on Rotten Tomatos (www.rottentomatos.com), it's rating is almost unprecedented.

For the full impact, be sure to see it in IMAX.
 
Whatever happened to Omnimax? The one that wrapped around you... 3D movies make my eyes hurt.
 
Henning said:
Whatever happened to Omnimax? The one that wrapped around you... 3D movies make my eyes hurt.
Click to expand...

There's an IMAX Dome theater in town here, is that what you're talking about? The seating area is tilted up at about a 45º angle and the screen pretty much surrounds everything in front of it, 180º of a sphere. Pretty cool.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
There's an IMAX Dome theater in town here, is that what you're talking about? The seating area is tilted up at about a 45º angle and the screen pretty much surrounds everything in front of it, 180º of a sphere. Pretty cool.
Click to expand...

Sounds the same, it used to be called Omnimax.
 
Saw it last night, dozed off a few times.

The story didn't carry 90 minutes, so there are long stretches of 3d effects to fill in the gaps.
 
Just saw it, and was impressed. Very we'll done. I would recommend the IMAX 3D.
 
I watched this in a theatre yesterday and I wholeheartedly recommend it! For a while now I have thought that science fiction movies should have warning labels similar to movies with animals, except that instead of "no animals were harmed in the making of this movie" it would say"no laws of physics were harmed in the making of this movie". Gravity is one of the few movies I have seen that I could give this label to--don't get me started on sound in space but the other bugaboo I have is when the hero is behind the bad guy in his spaceship and accelerates to catch up with him! (newsflash from real orbital mechanics, if you did that you would actually fall farther behind!). The only nit I had with Gravity--and it is a small one--is that the action starts in a high LEO at 600 km, there do not appear to be any de-orbit burns, but the final sequences are at another spot (will not spoil anything) that must be closer to 150 km based on what happens (again no spoilers). But for most of us it is probably the closest we'll get to seeing what it looks like to be in orbit.
 
The special effects are amazing and there is plenty of eye candy. Overall it is a beautiful movie. Even my wife enjoyed it. Obviously many events in this movie could never happen in reality but who cares? It was a lot of fun.
 
I saw it yesterday. Great movie, really enjoyable. I'd never seen something in 3D but I would totally recommend doing so for this movie.
 
Just saw it. In 3D. Great special effects. Good movie. I enjoyed it, but did not "love it".
 
Henning said:
Sounds the same, it used to be called Omnimax.
Click to expand...

IMAX and OMNIMAX are almost, but not quite, the same thing. More correctly, I guess, OMNIMAX is a special case of IMAX. It uses the same film and projection equipment as IMAX, except for the lenses and the fact that it uses the curved, wrap-around screen you mentioned earlier whereas IMAX uses a flat screen. This Wikipedia article has some information on it; search the article for OMNIMAX.

I like OMNIMAX myself, although my wife finds it uncomfortable -- she tends to get motion sickness when watching it. Apparently OMNIMAX never became as popular as IMAX based on the number of theaters and films. I don't know if that's because of viewer preference or cost or what.

I remember seeing an film or two in an IMAX theater several years ago that had contained some OMNIMAX clips. The OMNIMAX scenes were rather distorted -- like looking through a fish-eye lens.

Lee
 
I saw it today. I enjoyed it. Talk about Murphy's Law....WOW!
 
hankrausch said:
.... but the other bugaboo I have is when the hero is behind the bad guy in his spaceship and accelerates to catch up with him! (newsflash from real orbital mechanics, if you did that you would actually fall farther behind!).
Click to expand...

The keyword, though, it "Orbit" mechanics. What you are describing is perfectly correct for those wishing to change their relative position with minimal propellant usage, but if you've got the power to spare, that deal's off. You *can* fly directly at the target, but you'll have to burn extra to overcome the other effects.

But of course, that wouldn't apply to the MMU in "Gravity". :)

I've been in the space business for 36 years now. I tremendously enjoyed "Gravity," though I'll admit to fairly regular twinges of "That's not right," "It doesn't work that way," and "they couldn't do that." The climactic scene between Clooney and Bullock is totally bogus; there are other ways the same result could have been reached without a phantom force pulling at them. We are so accustomed to the effects of gravity and an atmosphere that it's a ready trap when screenwriters are trying to put someone in peril.

Frankly, warts and all, I loved the film. Saw the 2-D version due to monocular vision, but the wife's going to make me take her back to the 3-D version.

Ron Wanttaja
 
This was not a documentary. There were many violations of engineering principles and the laws of physics but who cares? This is entertainment and the movie was fun to watch. If you want more accuracy stay at home and tune in the Smithsonian or National Geographic channel.
 
Gary F said:
This was not a documentary. There were many violations of engineering principles and the laws of physics but who cares? This is entertainment and the movie was fun to watch. If you want more accuracy stay at home and tune in the Smithsonian or National Geographic channel.
Click to expand...

But please God stay away from Discovery or History channels....:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Gary F said:
Why? Redneck reality shows can be very entertaining.
Click to expand...

And, quite frankly, the Mythbusters have done a particularly good job. You would be amazed at just how much physics my 8 year old has picked up from them. They even demonstrated the airplane-on-a-treadmill myth -- and got the right answer -- but somehow found a local aerobatic pilot (who I don't know) that didn't understand airspeed.

But redneck rocket scientists? Oh, brother.
 
Best movie I've seen this year. Might be the best movie I've seen ever. Well worth the 3D and IMAX money. Utterly remarkable.
 
My son and I saw it and sat there while the credits rolled, with both of us saying "awesome" and "amazing" over and over. (We saw it in IMAX 3D.) And, yes, there were those times when the physics didn't pass muster, but then pretty much any movie has moments where it's just not right.

It's called suspension of disbelief, and when you have production values like in Gravity, the disbelief is quite easy to syspend.

I will go see it again. Possibly the most enjoyable 90 minutes I've ever had at a movie theater (other than drive-ins in high school, perhaps).
 
It's a great movie and director Alfonso Cuaron did a great job. Didn't expect anything less from him. One of the best sic-fi movies ever. I'm also in the film business and this has got all of Hollywood talking.
 
I found myself murmuring "wrong actors, wrong actors" throughout. And this from a fan of both Bullock and Clooney. Not that they were bad, I just kept imagining others doing better.

And I would have kept more emphasis on the orbiting debris cloud to keep the tension. As in the episode "33" from Battlestar Galactica, the inevitability of its arrival could have been almost elevated to a third character throughout the movie...instead near the end it was almost an afterthought.

On the other hand it was otherwise a great movie, laws of physics notwithstanding.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I really don't get out to see movies at the theaters much anymore. But I just saw some ads for "Gravity" with George Clooney and Sandra Bulluck; when I read the basic plot line, the first thing it reminded me of was a short story written decades ago by Ray Bradbury. Same initial concept. Bradbury's story was memorable to me because of its ending. I couldn't remember its title, but I did remember the last lines spoken in the story, and that was all it took for me to locate the title online: "Kaleidoscope".

Now, in my quick check to see if anyone else had the same thought, I find that they sure have, such as this article, which tries to point out why they are different without giving much away (I think the author does a reasonable job avoiding spoilers since I still only know generalities of the film, not how it resolves - but it might reveal too much even for some):

http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/...radburys-kaleidoscope-not-the-same-story.html

The trailers on Youtube manage to convey a lot of emotional intensity that has me intrigued. I have yet to see a movie in 3D at a theater. Wondering if I should go see it or wait till it is available for watching at home.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen it yet and I try to avoid trailers and commercials as they really love to spoil the surprise of movies these days to get folks in the theater. That said, what I did see also reminded me of a sci-fi tale that I probably read in the 1960's. I couldn't remember the author just the general idea of some brainy fellow using gravity and the laws of physics to save at least himself. I dimly recall that the story made an analogy with a bowl as far as energy is concerned.
 
Last edited:
I never even saw previews when I sat and watched it in 3D last night. All I can say is without the flashy graphics it just wouldn't have much of anything.
 
bnt83 said:
I never even saw previews when I sat and watched it in 3D last night. All I can say is without the flashy graphics it just wouldn't have much of anything.
Click to expand...

I was starting to think I was the only one that felt like that. I hadn't seen any previews either. I think it had so much more potential, but in the end, it fell flat.

Maybe my expectations were too high from watching practically every Shuttle mission from launch, EVAs, and Landings on the NASA channel:dunno:

Best sci-fi movie ever:confused:
This was nowhere near as good as Battlestar Galactica (Re-imagined Series).
 
Last edited:
redtail said:
I was starting to think I was the only one that felt like that. I hadn't seen any previews either. I think it had so much more potential, but in the end, it fell flat.

Maybe my expectations were too high from watching practically every Shuttle mission from launch, EVAs, and Landings on the NASA channel:dunno:

Best sci-fi movie ever:confused:
This was no where near as good as Battlestar Galactica (Re-imagined Series).
Click to expand...


Oblivion was much better than Gravity.
 
Saw it yesterday in IMAX 3D.

Quite a ride.

Reminded me of a movie called "Das Boot".

You know...

"OK, things can't possibly get any worse."

"Wanna bet?"
 
My first 3D experience. Impressive. Without it, the movie would have been "Meh".
Kept hoping for a Jaqueline Bissett moment there at the end. 'Twas not to be.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Wondering if I should go see it or wait till it is available for watching at home.
Click to expand...

Possible spoilers....


I finally found time to see the movie with my wife. We went to a 3:30 Wednesday afternoon showing (3D, but not IMAX) - so there were only 10 people in the theater. Still managed to get some "talkers" sit behind us. Sigh. And one of them had an apple to eat. I guess they were more hungry for fiber than movie sound. (I know I can't hear things very well on TV when I eat something crunchy.)

Unfortunately for me, the movie had to establish itself on more than the 3D because I had strabismus for many years till I had eye surgery 20 years ago to straighten the eyes. I am more likely suppress the image in one eye than fuse into 3D (something I can do under certain conditions; but this was not one of those cases. I really need to establish regular eye exercises with a Brock String, but that is for another thread, maybe.)

Alas, the movie was merely "OK" because of several factors: The astronaut played by George Clooney was too glib for either of our taste. Just didn't come across as legit. The dialog and monologues seemed too forced and artificial. My expectations of technical and scientific accuracy vary, depending on the show or movie. For example, there is a lot I'm willing to allow a Star Trek, a Star Wars, or a Star Gate episode or movie to get away with, but not so much for a movie of this genre.

The juxtaposition of a technology no longer flying (space shuttle) with one yet to fly (Chinese space station) - if ever - was something not easy for me to dismiss. There were the other technical problems that others have already pointed out (like differing orbits of the various spacecraft making the main plot points untenable.)

Lastly, I don't think the casting was wrong per se, since I can't imagine anyone else doing any better with that script.
 
FastEddieB said:
Saw it yesterday in IMAX 3D.

Quite a ride.

Reminded me of a movie called "Das Boot".

You know...

"OK, things can't possibly get any worse."

"Wanna bet?"
Click to expand...

Lol, that was a god movie, my cousin is in it as the Second Officer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top