Just got back from seeing this a second time with Eddie, who was seeing it for his first time.

3D.

IMAX.

Way too close to the screen.

Holy shit, you guys.

I was a bit bummed when I saw how close we were to the screen. I kept cracking up, it was actually funny, looking up at the screen before the movie started... like, "oh my god these seats are retarded." To give you a sense of it, tilt you head back, way back - it was that tall, and the screen was curved almost around us, and so wide it literally went out farther than the frames of the glasses.

And I was bummed! Like, "man, these seats suck."

Yeah, funny thing about that; just for this movie, it actually worked out better than anything else would have. Because we were so separated from the usual filmwatching experience, the usual angle, and having to look up to see what's up there, and to the side to see what's going on over there, it was so-close-as-makes-no-difference like actually being there with them. Totally immersive.

Super, super cool. It's better the second time, for the usual "well now I won't be surprised by nitpicky things that take me out of the movie" reasons.

Also.

I watched closely during the "Clooney has to detatch" scene to confirm or deny the angular momentum excuse; "the station is spinning, so he's inheriting weight from the spin that justifies the pull on Bullock's tether." I like that excuse a lot, because it's a completely plausible justification for what otherwise seemed to be a massive departure from the ballistic "accuracy" of most of the movie. I was keeping an eye on specific details and general film grammar, really trying to see if that was what was going on and if it's just kind of unclear.

Aaaand, the answer is no way. That isn't happening. There's a couple camera moves that seem to indicate a bit of rotation happening, but all those camera moves are offset by opposing ones that conclusively indicate the "rotation" you could imagine was just the camera moving around. Bastard ain't spinnin,' and we're back to square one on the "aw, damn it, that part doesn't make sense" thing.

hmm, good to have some confirmation at least. Also, what about Sandra's foot, does it clearly show them as now being stationary? Because the ropes are elastic, and it looked like she was continuing to stretch the rope, which would imply that he still had momentum dragging her, which I could buy.

Either way, it doesn't really bother me in the slightest. I didn't pick up on it during the movie, and wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't specifically pointed out to me.

Fireproof - to your point, imagine Avatar, except the stuff being animated is stuff that currently exists in the real world and we can relate too. This movie is 95% animation (most shots I'm pretty sure just Sandra's face is live action), and it all looks photo-real and stunning.

The stuff that really gets me is the interior shots, I have 0 clue how they did that stuff. It seems like there's gotta be practical ISS stuff there for Sandra to interact with, but when she's flying through the station casually, there's no way that's practical....right? This is the first movie in a LOOOOONG time where I'm utterly flabbergasted at how some of this stuff was filmed. This movie shouldn't exist.

Last edited by bullet3 (2013-10-08 06:13:23)

Saw it.   Jeezus.

As You Know, there are nitpicks to be made but the only one that really took me out of the movie was the Clooney tether business.   Wish they'd spent just a little more effort justifying that.

But otherwise, cripes. If there's any justice, we got a contender for Most Oscar Nominations of 2013 right here.

Also, BOY is the bake off going to be perfunctory this year.

I was gonna say, it's funny how they could literally play any random 10 minute chunk of this movie and be guaranteed the oscar

Replace Iron Man 3 with Oblivion and you'd likely be correct

Yeah, I'm not sure about Iron Man 3, it's just more of the same stuff that's been nominated before.

Gravity (so far anyway) is this year's Life of Pi - a movie that does things with FX that haven't been seen before.  That pretty much always guarantees a nomination. 

I think Pacific Rim has a good shot as well - although we've seen plenty of giant robot movies, it's just so damn gorgeous.

Oblivion deserves a shot, but I dunno if there's enough love there to get it into the final five.

EDIT:  Actually, I suppose All Is Lost is really this year's Life of Pi (just without a tiger).   It might grab a slot if the FX work is really good - the Academy likes to reward "natural" FX whenever they can.  Especially if there's an ocean involved (Perfect Storm, Poseidon, Titanic, Cast Away, Pi...)

FXGuide's Making of Gravity article

Fucking christ they roto'd this entire movie. Those poor bastards.

Also, they mention full on cg face-replacements, and I'm wondering which sequences that was done for.

Damn Hollywood, You scary.

"Life is about movies; anything else is a bonus!"- Me   

Where the fuck is Elysium? Also, Evil Dead needs some respect for going all practical.