This is too amusing not to pass on. My sister and her hubby saw Gravity tonight, in 2D. Her verdict? It's boring, as nothing happens Her exact description was, about 20 minutes in you're down to one character, and you know nothing can happen to them or the movie ends so there's zero suspense. The visuals also did nothing for her, as that's just what every movie looks like nowadays.

Obviously, it's just not her kind of film She likes plot, and is more a destination than the journey type of person.

I think it was meant (guy number three more than Clooney) to appeal to everyone's "god it'd be fun to be in space, floating around" instinct, before all hell breaks loose.

But yeah, as a matter of protocol, not so much.

That SNL sketch was followed up on with a "Weekend Update" joke that basically said that the most farfetched thing about the film was George Clooney spending that much time talking to a woman his own age.

Last edited by Rob (2013-10-13 16:38:22)

Saw this posted elsewhere. 

No, it's not spinning that fast. There's might only be a few ounces of pull on him, but in zero-g, that's enough.

When Sandra hits the end of the tether, you see her swing against the backdrop of the Earth. In Clooney's shots at the end of the line, watch the stars behind him. They're moving in a consistent direction at a consistent speed, because they're slowly spinning against them.

More importantly, from a character standpoint, it's crucial because it cements for Sandra how the counter momentum in zero-G works. Clooney un-tethering gives her just enough push to drift back towards the station. Then later at the end, when she's got the empty fire-extinguisher and is just out of reach of the hatch, she chucks it to give herself that extra boost and makes it. I love that moment so much.

Doctor Who did it better, when the 5th Doctor threw a cricket ball to send him back towards the airlock.

On Letterboxd, Adam from Filmspotting has written a little piece about the accusations of paternalism vis-a-vis Kowalski's treatment of Stone and Stone's status as an inexperienced woman astronaut (as opposed to an inexperienced astronaut who happens also to be a woman):

It's always fair to call out films that fall back on paternalistic tropes, but I think he's right that the argument might be a stretch with this film. To my mind, the closest thing to clear sexism in the film is the fleeting mock-flirtation Kowalski creates with Stone during a tense, dangerous moment. In that moment, one could argue that he's treating her in a particular way because she's a woman. But that's kinda it. Her inexperience as an astronaut has to do with the fact that she's not a career astronaut. It's made clear she's a doc who works in a hospital and is only in space because [whatever the reason is].

Seems like Cuaron makes her inexperienced for dramatic, not necessarily paternalistic, reasons. It makes Stone the underdog. When she's trying to operate the escape craft later, the fact that she's a physician who's never operated a real, non-simulation spacecraft adds to the suspense. It also makes us empathize — those buttons and controls appear as inscrutable to her as they do to us. Her moments of panic are consistent with the panic I would expect any male non-career astronaut to show in the same situation. Her moments of parental emotion, likewise, come at moments when death is a distinct possibility and after she's already been through a lot of scary shit. It'd be surprising if she didn't cry. Man or woman, that's when you cry, that moment. That's slightly different from portraying a woman character who cries at the drop of a hat.

Yeah, I didn't personally catch a paternalist vibe. Aside from Kowalski flirting with her to lighten the mood in a couple spots -- which you could convince me he would've done with a frightened male astronaut too, he seemed like the kind of guy -- I didn't feel he treated her any differently than he would have an inexperienced male astronaut, nor did I feel the movie treated her any differently.

If we apply the (certainly imperfect) test that's lately been applied to comic books, it's arguably a sexist portrayal if you can swap the gender, and a male in that situation strikes us as ridiculous. There is no situation in the film where making Stone a man renders "his" behavior or portrayal ridiculous.

Although you can change the theme.

(haven't seen the film, and have no idea if it was a case of the writer getting to the end with a male and female character and going, "Oh, theme!", or if he started with a theme and wrote the characters)

To add sharks, obviously.