Topic: Gravity

Thanks a ton to Anthony for making the schlep and dropping knowledge. I really like this episode.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

Giving a listen now...and we just came up on the whole "you can't go from hubble orbit to ISS orbit" issue.

I read an interview with Cuaron in which he stated that after the first draft was complete, he sent it to a bunch of physicists for technical support and that was one of the biggest issues they found. They did provide him with a way to explain how to make it work, and he did write a segment which would have addressed it to make it more realistic (he didn't state how in that interview).

Ultimately it took a 10-15 min segment to make it fit and he felt it messed up the pacing and other elements. So in the end it was one of those moments where he said "We could make it work, but it would have compromised the storytelling too much."

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

I have a general question. I've heard many say, including you guys, that Gravity really has to be seen in 3D for it to work. I didn't, which probably explains my feelings towards the film smile However, unless 3D TV REALLY catches on, from this point forward very few of those watching the movie will see the 3D version. I therefore wonder if it will have any more lasting impact than Avatar did. It's certainly not unwatchable the same way, say, How The West Was Won is (the three strip, curved screen image doesn't convert to flat letterbox well), but does a filmmaker have any obligation to "future proof" their film so it has a life beyond the theater? The answer used to be, "no", as they were competing against TV and home video didn't exist. Now, however...

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

Best commentary ever! But I'm biased so... smile

Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere. - Carl Sagan

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

Invid wrote:

I have a general question. I've heard many say, including you guys, that Gravity really has to be seen in 3D for it to work. I didn't, which probably explains my feelings towards the film smile However, unless 3D TV REALLY catches on, from this point forward very few of those watching the movie will see the 3D version. I therefore wonder if it will have any more lasting impact than Avatar did. It's certainly not unwatchable the same way, say, How The West Was Won is (the three strip, curved screen image doesn't convert to flat letterbox well), but does a filmmaker have any obligation to "future proof" their film so it has a life beyond the theater? The answer used to be, "no", as they were competing against TV and home video didn't exist. Now, however...

Here in London, the BFI IMAX is still showing Gravity every week. It's become a permanent fixture.

not long to go now...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

Invid wrote:

I have a general question. I've heard many say, including you guys, that Gravity really has to be seen in 3D for it to work. I didn't, which probably explains my feelings towards the film smile However, unless 3D TV REALLY catches on, from this point forward very few of those watching the movie will see the 3D version. I therefore wonder if it will have any more lasting impact than Avatar did. It's certainly not unwatchable the same way, say, How The West Was Won is (the three strip, curved screen image doesn't convert to flat letterbox well), but does a filmmaker have any obligation to "future proof" their film so it has a life beyond the theater? The answer used to be, "no", as they were competing against TV and home video didn't exist. Now, however...

I think the movie still works splendidly in 2D, personally—that was the way I first saw it before seeing it in 3D twice. You do lose some of the sense of depth that Dorkman talks about, but it's made up for a bit by the cinematography shining brighter. And let's face it, it's a technical marvel even without the 3D.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

Invid wrote:

I have a general question. I've heard many say, including you guys, that Gravity really has to be seen in 3D for it to work. I didn't, which probably explains my feelings towards the film smile However, unless 3D TV REALLY catches on, from this point forward very few of those watching the movie will see the 3D version. I therefore wonder if it will have any more lasting impact than Avatar did. It's certainly not unwatchable the same way, say, How The West Was Won is (the three strip, curved screen image doesn't convert to flat letterbox well), but does a filmmaker have any obligation to "future proof" their film so it has a life beyond the theater? The answer used to be, "no", as they were competing against TV and home video didn't exist. Now, however...

...the answer is still no.

Cuaron in particular -- and now I'm wishing this had come up during the episode -- is most concerned with the experience and possibilities of cinema. All the choices he made in making GRAVITY were with the goal of creating that experience for the audience. If you don't watch it in an environment designed for that experience, you simply will not get that experience. There is nothing he or any filmmaker can do about it.

It's like the difference between going to Disney World and watching a home movie of your trip to Disney World. You can capture the gist of the experience and even enjoy the home movies on their own merits, but they aren't and can't be the same as the experience of actually going.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

Dorkman wrote:
Invid wrote:

I have a general question. I've heard many say, including you guys, that Gravity really has to be seen in 3D for it to work. I didn't, which probably explains my feelings towards the film smile However, unless 3D TV REALLY catches on, from this point forward very few of those watching the movie will see the 3D version. I therefore wonder if it will have any more lasting impact than Avatar did. It's certainly not unwatchable the same way, say, How The West Was Won is (the three strip, curved screen image doesn't convert to flat letterbox well), but does a filmmaker have any obligation to "future proof" their film so it has a life beyond the theater? The answer used to be, "no", as they were competing against TV and home video didn't exist. Now, however...

...the answer is still no.

Cuaron in particular -- and now I'm wishing this had come up during the episode -- is most concerned with the experience and possibilities of cinema. All the choices he made in making GRAVITY were with the goal of creating that experience for the audience. If you don't watch it in an environment designed for that experience, you simply will not get that experience. There is nothing he or any filmmaker can do about it.

It's like the difference between going to Disney World and watching a home movie of your trip to Disney World. You can capture the gist of the experience and even enjoy the home movies on their own merits, but they aren't and can't be the same as the experience of actually going.

Personally, I've no interest in seeing this again on a laptop, iPad, or even 60" OLED screen. About 90% of its appeal was the big screen 3D experience, in which it excelled, but I'd be surprised if it got a second life on home video. The story itself is not strong enough to stand on its own. If it continues to be shown on IMAX, I'd be happy to go once a year or so.

not long to go now...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

It’s not so much that she doesn’t want to be in space, but that she doesn’t want to be, period. After the death of her daughter she has lost the will to live, her existence is meaningless and she is drifting from the world. Her spirit is floating into darkness, like her body is floating into the void. The physical reality of the movie is a literal representation of her psyche, and the entire movie is a representation of spiritual death and rebirth. Matthew’s actual death is the moment of her spiritual death, total disconnection from the rest of the living. “The shot” is the beginning of a new life, the incubation of the seed – hope, planted in her by Matthew, the lesson from the “father”. The fire in the ship is her soul reforged in the primordial darkness, and of course the ascent from water her being reborn. It is raw hero’s journey, as bare bones as you can get. The juxtaposition between the pure representation of such a poetic notion as the hero’s journey and the very harsh scientific realities of the movie is striking, there’s a chiaroscuro effect at work not only in the glorious visuals but also in concept. It is starkly elemental, primal, in both form and idea. Light - dark. Life - death. Fire - water. Space - ground. Nature - technology. Man - woman. Be - not be. And ultimately – be. Full circle. !

Not what I expected, and was fascinated to discover while writing this out.

As awesome as it is, the movie has some flaws. Stuff you guys pointed out, as-you-knows, Clooneyisms, but the major one for me being a product of its circumstances – it’s really just a lot of shit happening, very little motivation. Also, I don’t think her arc is that effectively portrayed, some beats are lacking. And why does Matthew insist on having a conversation with her when her oxygen is getting critically low? Stood out to me.

Technically it is amazing, and the visuals and music is absolutely gorgeous. And “the shot”, it may be precious, but I just had to exclaim “fuck you!”, you fantastic bastard, he owned it, and it certainly owns. Cuaron is one of my favourite directors as well, a master of the sensual, and in the end it is a movie about moments, emotion, and ideas. About being.

I saw it in 2D on a computer screen, unfortunately, but even then it truly is something. I can only imagine the impact of the full 3D cinema experience. Oh, well, maybe a special screening will come up in the future. One can hope.

The Low Frequenter

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

The point I'm about to try to make can easily be misconstrued but... did Sandra Bullock's face bother anybody else watching this movie?  The thing that took me out of this movie the most wasn't the where the science didn't hold up or where the FX didn't hold up.  What distracted me the most was her face. 

To me, Sandra Bullock's face doesn't look anything like a face one would find in nature.  She has a face that clearly has had cosmetic plastic surgery, right?  There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but her face totally looks like the face of a woman that has had very good very expensive plastic surgery.  Ryan Stone doesn't seem to me like a person who would have that. 

To be clear, I am not saying that cosmetic surgery is bad, either aesthetically or philosophically.  I am also not saying that it is unheard of for intelligent, resourceful people to also have a sense of vanity.  I'm not even saying Bullock shouldn't have been cast, because she kicked some serious butt in this role. 

It just seemed like an incongruity to me and it was an incongruity that the camera was focused on for most of the run time.  Was it just me?

Re: Gravity

Dorkman wrote:
Invid wrote:

I have a general question. I've heard many say, including you guys, that Gravity really has to be seen in 3D for it to work. I didn't, which probably explains my feelings towards the film smile However, unless 3D TV REALLY catches on, from this point forward very few of those watching the movie will see the 3D version. I therefore wonder if it will have any more lasting impact than Avatar did. It's certainly not unwatchable the same way, say, How The West Was Won is (the three strip, curved screen image doesn't convert to flat letterbox well), but does a filmmaker have any obligation to "future proof" their film so it has a life beyond the theater? The answer used to be, "no", as they were competing against TV and home video didn't exist. Now, however...

...the answer is still no.

Cuaron in particular -- and now I'm wishing this had come up during the episode -- is most concerned with the experience and possibilities of cinema. All the choices he made in making GRAVITY were with the goal of creating that experience for the audience. If you don't watch it in an environment designed for that experience, you simply will not get that experience. There is nothing he or any filmmaker can do about it.

It's like the difference between going to Disney World and watching a home movie of your trip to Disney World. You can capture the gist of the experience and even enjoy the home movies on their own merits, but they aren't and can't be the same as the experience of actually going.

But a side effect of this is that it may well blunt the film's legacy, right?  If 99% of important films can replicate, say, 80% of the theatrical experience with a 65 inch screen and a blu-ray player, those that will only be preserved with, say 60% (or whatever) of their original impact will probably be suffer in regards to how they are though of.  And more's the pity.

Ours is a culture increasing hostile toward ephemera.

Re: Gravity

Squiggly_P wrote:

I noticed Bullock looked strange in this as well, but not just cosmetic surgery. She looks gaunt, like she lost 30 or so pounds to play the role or something.

Well, she's getting up there, 49 years old. If she were 30 it might have felt a little weird to me, but a lean 50-year-old body is not going to look like a lean 30-year-old body. It didn't bother me.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

Sam F wrote:

Well, she's getting up there, 49 years old. If she were 30 it might have felt a little weird to me, but a lean 50-year-old body is not going to look like a lean 30-year-old body. It didn't bother me.

Oh my gods... Sandra Bullock is almost as old as my dad...

I..really...really...don't know how to feel about this.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/f1fd86f33321816dfa5b01e30bce3d7c/tumblr_inline_n5hikc859i1ql2975.gif

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2014-05-16 06:32:03)

ZangrethorDigital.ca

Re: Gravity

Fun game:

Watching 2001 on the ISS sounds like:

watching Air Force One on Air Force One
watching World Trade Center in the Freedom Tower
watching Olympus Has Fallen, or White House Down at the White House

Last edited by FireFighter214 (2014-05-16 13:17:07)

"Back to the Future is great, and if you disagree then you're Hitler." -Dorkman
"You sucking is canon!" -Brian

Thumbs up Thumbs down

15

Re: Gravity

I really enjoyed this one. Guest FIYH Anthony did an awesome job. You guys should have him back to share more ISS stories on some future podcast (in spaaaaace).

Last edited by Phi (2014-05-16 15:27:24)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

Invid wrote:
I have a general question. I've heard many say, including you guys, that Gravity really has to be seen in 3D for it to work. I didn't, which probably explains my feelings towards the film smile However, unless 3D TV REALLY catches on, from this point forward very few of those watching the movie will see the 3D version. I therefore wonder if it will have any more lasting impact than Avatar did. It's certainly not unwatchable the same way, say, How The West Was Won is (the three strip, curved screen image doesn't convert to flat letterbox well), but does a filmmaker have any obligation to "future proof" their film so it has a life beyond the theater? The answer used to be, "no", as they were competing against TV and home video didn't exist. Now, however...

I don’t think they do. Most studio movies are still a product made for cinema as the primary output, as a television movie for TV and so on. If there was any obligation it would be to the investors and the movie’s ability to make a profit on other outputs, by merit of not being perceived as such a lessened experience as to be detrimental. But I hardly think that’s much of a consideration, most people, if they liked the movie, will buy it regardless. If anything, for artistic reasons I would say it’s more of an obligation to fully utilize the tools available to you to optimise the experience that is just right for that particular project. The future would just have to keep up.

And for the record, I don't think Gravity needs 3D to work, its failings, those few there are, have nothing to do with the visuals and its ability to create an atmosphere, it would pretty much just enhance what's already being done quite beautifully.

So, I would say not so much obligated, but of course, it might be smart wink

The Low Frequenter

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

And I'm with Phi, Anthony was a great guest! Too bad Trey couldn't also make it though.

The Low Frequenter

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

You guys had an awesome guest and kept the quality up (as always).

I, however, disliked the movie. Not because of the hype and everything. But, because I saw it on a tv instead of the theater. The technical achievements and 'amazing theater experience' is fine. But, listen to the podcast guys: you don't really compliment the story. And, you glazed over the 'fridge logic' that permeates most of the plot (I understand the reasons but the film would work better if she were a survivor of a desert plane crash). The Lost World deserved to be criticized for its flaws and Gravity deserves to take its lumps, also.

Lastly, I wasn't just taken out of the movie by the flaws. I was also DEEPLY disinterested in the fate of the woman who didn't want to be there. By the time she cared and wanted to live, I couldn't connect to her anymore and kind of wanted her to fail. For contrast, I'd have loved to see Clooney's character attempt the same thing (he had a sense of humor and was clearly a pretty driven guy). I also should point out I take medication for depression. I do not lack sympathy for grief. I just don't want to watch someone mope and whine for 90 minutes.

I think there is a new phenomenon you guys should watch for (if you haven't seen it already). You recall people coming out of Avatar and talking about how amazing and spiritual and world-changing it was? They had seen Dances with Blue Wolves and got brainwashed by 3D or something. The 3D gravity seems to have had a similar effect: if you watched it at home, maybe you liked it, maybe not; But, the 3D theater people went bananas! I'm curious to see if this keeps happening with 3D movies.

The fix for this movies BTW is to set it as a plane crash in a desert. That way, Sandra doesn't have any training and isn't expected to have been trained; There is no need to cheat distances/physics/logic. The problem is that Cuaron wanted to make a space movie and wanted to make a character survival movie and I don't think the mix as well as I would like.
***
Remember: See if you can get your guest back for the next space/sci-fi movie!

Last edited by Jp12x (2014-05-18 23:24:16)

I post because I care.
  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
"Feel free to flame me. I don't like Legends of Korra or Gravity, either."

Re: Gravity

JP, would you like the desert version of this movie?  Take out the fridge logic issues but leave in Ryan Stone's story.  Is that a movie you would enjoy or does her lack of drive in the first half still kill it for you?

Re: Gravity

Isaac wrote:

JP, would you like the desert version of this movie?  Take out the fridge logic issues but leave in Ryan Stone's story.  Is that a movie you would enjoy or does her lack of drive in the first half still kill it for you?

ABSOLUTELY could enjoy it. The story seems to be that she doesn't really care about herself at the start. But, she has other characters to push/nudge her. Clooney is carrying her through the initial problems and then points her in the direction that she follows to the end. If there is enough to let the audience know she is dealing with something and, later, time taken to show she is working through it, I think it can work. I was just partly turned off and partly thrown out of the movie ('the Chinese station is over there, see?'). It wasn't Shia swinging on vines with a personal monkey army, but it still broke my suspension of disbelief repeatedly.

I think 'All is Lost' is a fair comparison. I enjoyed that far more. Sadly, it is the story of a guy who did not prepare properly for a solo sea voyage, making me think he is a kind of 'ocean hobo'.  smile

Last edited by Jp12x (2014-05-19 19:11:40)

I post because I care.
  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
"Feel free to flame me. I don't like Legends of Korra or Gravity, either."

Re: Gravity

Interesting.  For what it is worth, even though I pretty much loved Gravity as is and wasn't distracted by that which broke it for you (Sandra's face nonwithstanding), I would totally watch your version.

Re: Gravity

I think there's something else already in the LaGrange point on the far side of the moon. It's the deep space.. oh I remember, its the Wilkinson Probe!  It's basically the thing that looks for evidence of the beginning of the universe by mapping the cosmic microwave background radiation.  I wonder if it will get along well with this new telescope they're sending out there.   wink

Last edited by Hastings (2014-05-19 22:48:33)

Bloggy:  Inf0verload

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

Hastings wrote:

I think there's something else already in the LaGrange point on the far side of the moon. It's the deep space.. oh I remember, its the Wilkinson Probe!

According to Wikipedia, it was moved from L2 to a "graveyard orbit" after its mission ended.

So honor the valiant who die 'neath your sword
But pity the warrior who slays all his foes...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

About "that scene", the "cliffhanger" thing... I always thought there could have been an even MORE BETTERER solution to that.

- They have speed, she's tangled up with her feet in an *elastic* band
- Band is stretching, he goes "you need to let me go, or it'll break"
- She's all "fuck you, I'm holding on"
- Band stretches... stretches... they are slowing... slowing.... nearly at a stop...
- *PLINK* - band snaps. They are still moving... inches per second... away from safety.
- ...still holding hands...
- He's all "Okay, there's only one way for you to get back to the station. Equal and opposite action, and all that"
- She's all "What?"
- He's all "I need to push you away. You go home, I go away"
- She's all "No!"
- He's all "You got abetter idea!?"
- She's all "Oh fuck...."
- He's all "Yeah, fuck"
- She's all "I push you instead!!" *tears*
- He's all "No"... and shoves her off towards the station.
- They drift apart.. painfully slowly
- She's all "YOU ASSHOLE WHY DID YOU DO THAT"
- He's all "Hey, notice how pretty the stars are out here?"
- She's all "I HATE YOU" *devestated tears*
- He's all *turns on country music*
- He slooooowwwly drifts away.
- 3 minutes later, she bumps into the side of the station - safe - sobbing.
- Country music crackles out.

/Z

Thumbs up +5 Thumbs down

Re: Gravity

I'd trim a few lines tongue but otherwise much better all around.

Thumbs up Thumbs down